Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Time Spent Together in Intimate Relationships: Implications for Relationship Functioning

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Contemporary Family Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current models of relationship functioning often emphasize conflict with a particular focus on the behaviors that occur in that context. Much less is known about the impact of time spent interacting in the absence of conflict. The primary aim of this study is to test associations between time spent in various forms of daily interaction (engaging in a shared activity, talking, and arguing) and multiple relationship outcomes while controlling for positive and negative communication during conflict. The present sample consists of 49 married couples (N = 98 individuals). Data were analyzed using multilevel models to account for non-independence of the data. Consistent with previous literature, communication behaviors were related to relationship outcomes. After controlling for communication, couples who spent more time arguing per day were less satisfied in their relationships, and perceived greater negative qualities in their relationships. Finally, couples who spend a larger proportion of their time together talking reported greater satisfaction, perceived more positive qualities in their relationships, and experienced greater closeness. These findings suggest that low salience interactions account for unique variance in relationship functioning above and beyond what is currently studied. Future research is needed to determine possible mechanisms by which low salience interactions are related to relationship outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, A. J., Laurenceau, J.-P., Graber, E. C., Cohen, L. H., Dasch, K. B., & Siegel, S. D. (2011). Daily support in couples coping with early stage breast cancer: Maintaining intimacy during adversity. Health Psychology, 30, 665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chonody, J. M., Killian, M., Gabb, J., & Dunk-West, P. (2016). Understanding everyday relationship work: The development of a relationship maintenance scale. Advances in Social Work, 17(2), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, A., Atkins, D. C., Berns, S., Wheeler, J., Baucom, D. H., & Simpson, L. E. (2004). Traditional versus integrative behavioral couple therapy for significantly and chronically distressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.3.458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, A. O., Christensen, A., Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, B. R. (2017). Revised scoring and improved reliability for the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 29, 913. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Los Reyes, A., Kundey, S. M., & Wang, M. (2011). The end of the primary outcome measure: A research agenda for constructing its replacement. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(5), 829–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hoy, M., & Strejc, H. H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships all communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00545.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2007). Demand-withdraw communication in severely distressed, moderately distressed, and nondistressed couples: Rigidity and polarity during relationship and personal problem discussions. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (2014). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gump, B. B., Polk, D. E., Kamarck, T. W., & Shiffman, S. M. (2001). Partner interactions are associated with reduced blood pressure in the natural environment: Ambulatory monitoring evidence from a healthy, multiethnic adult sample. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200105000-00011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, M., Kuijer, R. G., Buunk, B. P., DeJong, G. M., Wobbes, T., & Sanderman, R. (2000). Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer: Does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it most? Health Psychology, 19, 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.3.274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heavey, C. L., Larson, B. M., Zumtobel, D. C., & Christensen, A. (1996). The Communication Patterns Questionnaire: The reliability and validity of a constructive communication subscale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 796–800. https://doi.org/10.2307/353737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, R. E., Hunt-Martorano, A. N., Malik, J., & Slep, A. M. S. (2009). Desired change in couples: Gender differences and effects on communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015980.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., Horne, R. M., Hardy, N. R., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Temporality of couple conflict and relationship perceptions. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(4), 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples’ communication predict marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication? Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, S. J., & Revenson, T. A. (2007). Social constraints on disclosure and adjustment to cancer. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00013.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogolsky, B. G., Monk, J. K., Rice, T. M., Theisen, J. C., & Maniotes, C. R. (2017). Relationship maintenance: A review of research on romantic relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 275–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathgeber, M., Bürkner, P. C., Schiller, E. M., & Holling, H. (2019). The efficacy of emotionally focused couples therapy and behavioral couples therapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of marital and family therapy, 45(3), 447–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., Congdon, R., & Du Toit, M. (2011). HLM statistical software: Version 7. Computer software.

  • Robbins, M. L., López, A. M., Weihs, K. L., & Mehl, M. R. (2014). Cancer conversations in context: Naturalistic observation of couples coping with breast cancer. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036458.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407591082004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, D. M., Fischer, M. S., Baucom, D. H., Baucom, B. R., Engl, J., Thurmaier, F., & Hahlweg, K. (2020). Escalation and Regulation of Emotional Arousal in Couples Predicts Relationship Satisfaction Concurrently and 25 Years Later. Family process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasara N. Hogan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The study involved human participants. Study was compliant with all ethical principles for working with human participants. Procedures were reviewed by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Informed consent

All participants provided informed consent for this study. The protocol numbers were IRB_00067907 and IRB_00070411.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hogan, J.N., Crenshaw, A.O., Baucom, K.J.W. et al. Time Spent Together in Intimate Relationships: Implications for Relationship Functioning. Contemp Fam Ther 43, 226–233 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-020-09562-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-020-09562-6

Keywords

Navigation