ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES Romantic Dyads Living Egalitarian Lifestyles: The Effects of Equitably Sharing Family Roles and Responsibilities on Marital Quality by Emma M. H. Watson A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah December 6, 2023 1 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 2 Acknowledgements To summarize my gratitude into a few simple paragraphs of the incredible individuals who cheered me on through my graduate degree seems nearly impossible. My life is full of angels, seen and unseen. To my husband, best friend, and equal partner in all of life’s ups and downs, you are the real MVP. Your endless support, consistent whispering of sweet everythings, and infinite love mean more to me than I can put into words. You willingly took on more family responsibilities than I can count (or would like to admit). You truly carried me. Thank you. To my four tiny heroes – you are my whole world! While you may not have really understood why mom’s hands and eyes were glued to her computer for countless hours over the past two years, you continued cuddling on my lap, snuggling up next to my feet, and giving me endless hugs of encouragement. Your simple, “I love you’s” propelled me forward. So much of what I hoped to learn from and accomplish in this project was for you – to be a better mom and caretaker, and to model a marriage full of healthy communication, mutual support, shared power, and most importantly, one full of unconditional love. To my parents who saved the day more than once when I was at my limit, thank you for taking the kiddos and giving them extra love. Thank you for being my biggest fans! To many other family members, thank you for checking in on me, asking me about my project, and encouraging me through uplifting words and advice. I am forever grateful for you all! To my dream team at Weber State, Dr. Daniel Hubler, Dr. Ryan Dunn, and Dr. Dustin Grote, I couldn’t have reached my goal without your support. You made all the difference. Finally, to the couples out there working to build egalitarian marriages, keep going! Your efforts matter! They are encouraging others, and you are making a difference in the world! Never forget what you’re fighting for – to strengthen and empower your partnership family. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 3 Table of Contents Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………. 5 Literature Review……………….….……………………………………………..... 6 Benefits of Marital Quality……………………………………………… 7 Predictors of Marital Quality…………………………………………... 11 Marital Arrangements Matter………………………………………….. 16 Egalitarian Families……………………………………………………. 18 Egalitarian Families’ Impact on Couples……………………………… 20 Egalitarian Families’ Impact on Children……………………………... 22 Theories Related to Egalitarian Families……………………………… 24 Why Egalitarian Marriages Thrive……………………………….……. 25 Purpose…………………………………………………………………………… 26 Methods…………………………………………………………………………... 28 Participants …………………………………………………………... 28 Instrument……………….….………………………………………... 29 Procedures……………….….………………………………………... 30 Data analysis……………….….……………………………………... 30 Limitations……………….….……………………………………….. 31 Results……………….….………………………………………………………... 31 Marital Satisfaction of Participants……………….….……………... 32 Romantic Relationship Gender Ideologies……………….….……… 34 Perception of Personal Romantic Relationship……………….….…. 35 Quality of Partner’s Communication……………….….…………… 36 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 4 Hypothesis Results……………….….……………………………… 37 Discussion……………….….………………………………………………….... 40 Collaborative Communication……………….….…………………. 41 Mutual Support and Shared Power……………….….…………..… 42 Conclusion……………….….…………………………………………………... 43 References……………….….…………………………………………………... 45 Appendices……………….….………………………………………………….. 68 Appendix A……………….….……………………………………. 68 Appendix B……………….….……………………………………. 69 Appendix C……………….….……………………………………. 70 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 5 The Influence of Egalitarian Dynamics on Marital Quality Creating and nourishing a meaningful romantic relationship is often a central component to the human experience (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Despite the significant decrease in individuals entering the institution of marriage (United States Census Bureau, 2017), 90% of the world’s population marry at some point during their lifetime (Karney & Bradbury, 2020), and couples’ marital quality remains one of the strongest predictors of personal well-being (Carlson & Kail, 2018; Slatcher & Schoebi, 2017). Benefits of a fulfilling and warm marriage include improved health outcomes (Carlson & Kail, 2018; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Robles et al., 2014), increased longevity (Whisman et al., 2018), and increases in psychological well-being (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2010; Slatcher & Schoebi, 2017). Many factors are linked to and may help predict marital quality including gender (Heaton, 2002; Jackson et al., 2014), partners’ age (Randall & Bodenmann 2017), religiosity of couples (Fincham & Beach, 2010; Olson et al., 2016), socioeconomic status (Schramm & Harris, 2011), educational attainment (Tavakol et al., 2017), and sociocultural expectations (Wilcox & Dew, 2013). Married, committed couples consistently share the same space and time, participating alongside each other in various experiences including leisure activities, domestic chores, parenting, and intimacy (Karney & Bradbury, 2020). Egalitarianism, or views that support equity between partners (Zimmerman, 2003) in heterosexual relationships, has been linked to individual health and psychological well-being for romantic partners (Carlson & Kail, 2018; Steil, 1997), as well as positive relationship processes and outcomes such as greater couple satisfaction and stability (Carlson et al., 2020; Ogolsky et al., 2014; Stevens et al., 2001). Conversely, partners in inequitable relationships, especially women in these partnerships, report lower levels of marital quality (Barstad, 2014; Carlson et al., ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 6 2016; Carlson et al., 2018; Rogers & Amato, 2000), increased conflict (Kluwer et al., 1997; Stohs, 2000), and relationship dissolution (DeMaris, 2007). While many factors influence relationship egalitarianism, the way in which couples share routine domestic labor responsibilities primarily impacts relationship quality and sexual satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2016; Carlson et al., 2020; Schieman et al., 2018). Discrepancies in gender ideologies and roles, and perceptions of equity and fairness within these romantic relationship dyads can negatively impact their relationship satisfaction, stability, and partner emotional states (Leonhardt et al., 2019; Lively et al., 2010; Ogolsky et al, 2014; Stohs, 2000; Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990). Despite the growing research on the benefits of egalitarian romantic relationships, couples who constantly and equitably share routine household responsibilities remain among the global minority (Carlson et al., 2018; Gerson, 2010). While literature supporting egalitarian households is generally associated with greater relationship satisfaction and stronger families (Goldscheider et al., 2015), the reason also remains unclear (Carlson et al., 2020). This project seeks to further the current body of scholarship on egalitarian romantic relationships’ influence on healthy couple dynamics and processes. This will be accomplished by exploring how effective egalitarian relationship dynamics taught through relationship education impact individuals’ attitudes towards collaborative communication between partners, shared power within couples, mutual support, and egalitarian relationships in general. Further, research on how healthy communication remains a crucial factor for couple satisfaction and stability is explored in more detail. Other variables to egalitarian couples are also explored. Literature Review The purpose of this literature review is to investigate the influence of households with an egalitarian lifestyle on marital quality and family outcomes. It begins with a discussion on the ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 7 benefits of marital quality and including physical health, longevity, and psychological wellbeing. Next, I will share predictors of marital satisfaction including biological sex and gender, partners’ age, religiosity of couples, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and sociocultural expectations. A consideration of the importance of marital arrangements through a discussion of relationship education as another predictor of marital satisfaction will also be discussed. After the discussion on predictors of marital satisfaction, I will present the case that egalitarian living in marriage positively influences marital quality and satisfaction as well as impacts family outcomes through a dialogue on social learning theory and equity theory. The literature review concludes with three interpersonal skills used by of successful romantic egalitarian relationships. Benefits of Marital Quality Marital quality as defined by Fincham and Bradbury (1987) involves a global evaluation of a marriage encompassing positive and negative aspects such as support and strain (Fincham et al., 1997; Slatcher, 2010), attitudes, and descriptions of behaviors and communication patterns (Bradbury et al., 2000). High marital quality typically is characterized by positive attitudes towards one’s partner and low levels of inimical or negative behavior, whereas low marital quality is characterized by predominately negative feelings towards one’s partner and high levels of inimical or negative behavior (Karney & Bradbury, 2020). Married, committed couples consistently share the same space and time, participating alongside each other in various experiences including leisure activities, domestic chores, parenting, and intimacy (Karney & Bradbury, 2020). The mutuality, security, and camaraderie created by this intimate bond of social support (Selcuk et al., 2010) constructs benefits of increased commitment and joint ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 8 investments such as shared finances, raising children, and establishing a place to call home (Carr & Springer, 2010; Karney & Bradbury, 2020). While the number of individuals entering the institution of marriage is decreasing (United States Census Bureau, 2017), the vast majority of people continue to marry at some point during their lifetime (Karney & Bradbury, 2020). One explanation for this statistic is that decades of research on marital quality and stability emphasize the benefits of a warm and fulfilling marriage including improved health outcomes (Carlson & Kail, 2018; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Robles et al., 2014; Steil, 1997), increases in psychological well-being (Be et al., 2013; KiecoltGlaser et al., 2010; Slatcher & Schoebi, 2017), and more longevity (Whisman et al., 2018). Wadsworth (2015) found that marriage finds happy people and provides shared support and resources that contribute to the overall health and well-being of individuals and influences the marital quality of couples. Marital Quality, Health, and Longevity Decades of research strongly support the link between marital functioning and health, specifically explaining that on average, married people enjoy greater mental and physical health, as well as healthier lifestyles and longevity than the unmarried or divorced (Bookwala, 2005; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Lawerence et al., 2018; Slatcher & Schoebi, 2017; Robles & KiecoltGlaser, 2003; Robles et al., 2014). According to Kiecolt-Glaser and associates (2010), scholarship has linked marital quality to physical and psychological health outcomes ranging from intracellular signaling to mortality. Further, research on longevity and marital satisfaction show that when compared to the nonmarried, morbidity and mortality are reliably lower for married couples across various acute and chronic medical conditions including cancer, heart ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 9 attacks, and surgery (Aizer et al., 2013; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Neuman & Werner, 2016; Robles et al., 2014). However, there are some caveats to the links between individual health and marital quality. According to Robles and associates (2014) “unhappy relationships may contribute to poorer health. Chronic medical conditions, or factors that predispose an individual to poorer health, may also act as enduring vulnerabilities that contribute to the declines in marital satisfaction” (p.143). This finding shows a potential reciprocal causation between individual health and marital quality. Poorer marital quality can also negatively affect endocrine- and immune-system functioning (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1993; Keicolt-Glaser & Newton, 200), as well as increase the risk of cardiovascular stress and disease (Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003; Smith et al., 2009). Further, South and Krueger (2013) found a biological pathway from marital quality to physiological outcomes suggesting that marital quality may also enhance or suppress the effects of epigenetics on physiological health. While marital quality is influenced by various factors of individual health, the effects may be more drastic for women than men (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Robles et al., 2014; Wanic & Kulik, 2011). Robles and associates (2014) suggest that one explanation for gender differences in the influence overall health has on marital quality may be that “several gender-related factors contribute to women being more aware of and responsive to the affective quality of relational interactions and spending more time thinking about relationships” (p. 146). As a result, women’s thought process and self-determination might be influenced more intimately by their close relationships than men (Cross & Madson, 1997). Further, Wanic and Kulik (2011) suggest that gender differences associated with marital functioning and physiology such as women’s social status and economic and domestic labor-related differences can be explained by women’s ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 10 relative subordinate position in marriage. These factors influence women’s marital quality which can be positively impacted by a couple living an egalitarian lifestyle. This impact will be discussed in greater detail. Marital Quality and Psychological Well-Being Marriage creates the possibility of emotional advantages for both men and women alike (Carlson, 2012). A growing body of literature addresses the influence of interactions within marriages and dyad mutuality on health outcomes (Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017). Findings are explaining direct effects on physiological processes and physical health trajectories, advocating that marital closeness invokes possible strain when one partner has mental or physical health complications (Hoppmann et al., 2011; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017). For example, one study by Schulz and associates (2009) found that one partner’s distress or mental illness can aggravate similar emotional responses in their partner due to their shared environment and history, patterns of interaction, and emotional contagion. On the other hand, couples’ interconnectedness, also called relative benefit (Martire, 2005) can promote better treatment outcomes for psychological and medical diagnoses (Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017), and may have a greater effect on reducing symptoms than psychosocial interventions or usual care (Martire et al., 2010). In a meta-analysis exploring the relationship between marital quality and indicators of psychological well-being, including depression, anxiety, self-assurance, life fulfillment, and happiness, greater marital quality was correlated to greater psychological well-being for both men and women (Robles et al., 2014). However, marriages defined by low relationship quality are significantly associated with decreases in psychological well-being (Hawkins & Booth, 2005). Lawrence and associates (2018) found that “those who are not too happy in their marriage have the worst health and the ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 11 shortest lives” (p. 4). These unhappy marriages can cause the onset of psychopathology such as changes in mood, heightened anxiety, and substance use disorders for both men and women (Whisman & Baucom, 2012). Additionally, three decades of research investigating the relationship between depression and marital distress explain there is a clear, bidirectional association between the two factors (Fincham & Beach, 1999; Robles et al., 2014). Because depression alters multiple biological systems including immune, endocrine, cardiovascular, and neurocognitive (Hughes, et al., 2016; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017), maintaining a close and stable marriage decreases the risks of possible associated health threats couples may experience (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2010). While the overall health of an individual plays a significant role in a couple’s marital quality, there are various other predictors of marital satisfaction which will be discussed in this paper. Predictors of Marital Quality Couples who report greater marital quality subsequently report experiencing fewer negative life events (Cohen & Bradbury, 1997), mutual support through dyadic coping (Bodenmann et al., 2019; Falconier et al., 2015), positive communication (Christensen et al., 2006), shared meaning of religiousness (Olsen et al., 2016), fewer symptoms of psychological distress (Whisman & Baucom, 2012), and better health overall (Bookwala, 2005; Slatcher & Schoebi, 2017; Robles et al., 2014). In a global study on the perspective of marital satisfaction involving 33 countries and over 7000 participants, Dobrowalska along with 71 other international researchers (2020) found that across all cultures, the primary predictors of marital quality include gender, age, religiosity, economic status, education, and cultural values. Further findings suggest the duration of a marriage, number of children, and a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) were not significant predictors of marital satisfaction (Dobrowalska et al., 2020). ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 12 Together, these findings articulate the story that individual differences play a more significant role in marital satisfaction than does the country of origin (Dobrowalska et al., 2020). Gender According to Jackson and colleagues (2014) “marital scholars generally acknowledge that men and women experience marriage differently” (p. 105). For most Western and nonWestern cultures, differences based on gender in marital quality suggest that men may receive more satisfaction from their marriage compared to women (Fowers, 1991; Jackson et al., 2014; Whiteman et al., 2007). Research explains that these differences can be attributed to specific characteristics of various cultural views regarding socially accepted gender roles, patriarchy, and egalitarianism. (Kaufman, 2000; Taniguchi & Kaufman, 2013). However, with the decreased prevalence of patriarchal marriages and increased value placed on egalitarian families, as well as a narrowing in the gender gap regarding childcare and household responsibilities, marital satisfaction discrepancies between men and women are decreasing (Jackson et al., 2014). Further, an analysis of 46 meta-analyses on psychological variables between men and women further explains that gender differences are nonsignificant for most psychological variables (Hyde, 2005). Age According to Heaton (2002), age at the time of marriage plays the greatest role in marital satisfaction and length of marriage. However, more recent findings explain that while age at first marriage is important, other factors such as sociocultural expectations remain equally influential in marital quality outcomes (Bartle-Haring et al., 2018). Research has found that the sweet spot for the age at first marriage is between 24- and 30-years-old (Bartle-Haring et al., 2018), and that women who marry at older ages report experiencing more stable marriages (Heaton, 2002). ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 13 Further, as a couple ages together, marital satisfaction fluctuates but can remain stable when the dyad prioritizes their affection and camaraderie despite numerous life changes and challenges (Randall & Bodenman, 2017). Religiosity of Couples Over the past two decades, scholarship has indicated consistent links between religiosity and positive marital outcomes (Brown et al., 2008; Fincham & Beach, 2010; Olson et al., 2016; Schramm et al., 2012; Vaaler et al., 2009; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). A wide variety of measures of religiosity including frequent church attendance, support from faith communities, and personal growth associated with individual spirituality are associated with higher marital quality and dyadic commitment (Goddard et al., 2012; Mahoney, 2010; Olson et al., 2016, Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008). Other factors such as couples’ level of forgiveness, sacrifice, prayer for spousal well-being, as well as views of the sanctity and uniqueness of the marital bond, and the belief that God is ever-present in marriage have been found to mediate the association between religiosity and greater marital quality (Day & Acock, 2013; Goodman et al., 2012; Goodman et al., 2013; Olsen et al., 2015; Olsen et al., 2016; Wilcox & Dew, 2013). Both individual-level and dyadic-level religiosity impact marital well-being (Mahoney et al., 2001; Olsen et al., 2015; Schramm et al., 2012; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). In a metaanalysis conducted by Mahoney and colleagues (2001), findings explained that couple-focused constructs of religious homogamy – i.e. shared religious affiliations and views – as well as joint religious attendance are salient predictors of increased martial quality and commitment. Further scholarship on religious homogamy found that greater joint religious affiliations were associated with increased levels of marital stability and functioning (Carlson et al., 2015; Mohoney et al., 1999; Schramm et al., 2012; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). Similarly, Curtis and Ellison (2002) ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 14 found that disparities in religiosity including theological beliefs, religious denominations, and church attendance increased the likelihood of marital conflict and disharmony. With the increase in the commonality of interfaith marriages, Myer (2006) suggested that homogamy may not be as strongly linked to marital outcomes as significantly as it previously has. While some research suggests that religious couples experience more happiness in their marriages than non-religious couples (Fincham et al., 2011; Mahoney et al., 2001; Schramm et al., 2012), more evidence is needed to explain the relationship between atheism and marital satisfaction (Sorokowski et al., 2019). Further studies on individuals with various religious affiliations and the impact each have on marital well-being would significantly add to the current body of literature (Olson et al., 2016; Sorokowski et al., 2019) as it would provide greater insight into understanding the interaction between religion and overall marital quality. Socioeconomic Status The link between marriage and socioeconomic status is a significant determinant of wellbeing (Elo, 2009; Lawrence et al., 2018). Couples with low incomes often have basic unmet physical and psychological needs that are strongly shaped by economic insecurities (Schramm & Harris, 2011). Economic insecurities for low-income individuals often spill over into relationships, heightening relationship tension and increasing family stressors (Schramm & Harris, 2011). These stressors subsequently increase a couple’s vulnerability to relationship dissatisfaction (Dyk, 2004; Schramm & Harris, 2011). In a study focused on relationship problems and low-income couples, Jackson and colleagues (2016) found that low economic status threatens marital stability, especially when the essential needs of a couple are unable to be met. Further findings explain that when individuals fundamental, basic needs are not predictably met, they may pay less attention to higher-order needs such as emotional fulfillment and ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 15 intimacy (Jackson et al., 2016; Maslow, 1943), which can negatively impact marital stability. Thus, while low-income couples may place a high value on healthy marriages (Trail & Karney, 2012), the incursion of external stressors concerning financial and physical security draws attention away from the salience of marital quality and well-being (Hill, 1949; Jackson et al., 2016). Educational Attainment Educational attainment, including partners’ participation in relationship education as well as professional degrees may contribute to marital quality (Schramm & Harris, 2011). A study by Tucker and O’Grady (2001) found that individuals judge similarities in educational attainment as a significant determinant in discussing the marital quality of the couples. Alder (2010) explained that couples are seen to have more satisfying marriages when their education level was commensurate with that of their spouse. Research by Heaton (2002) suggested that women with more educational attainment were less likely to experience marital dissolution. Overall, more educated couples tend to have higher social functioning and problem-solving skills (Madanianan, 2013; Tabatabaei et al., 2012), equipping them with potential strategies to better manage problems related to marital satisfaction (Tavakol et al., 2017). Sociocultural Expectations Norms, values, and familial issues differ in collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001), and influence various areas of social domains including emotional intimacy, gender role expectations, and generosity in marriage (Wilcox & Dew, 2013). Collectivistic cultures place significant value on characteristics such as mutual help, collaboration, and fidelity (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2001; Onyishi et al., 2012), which may influence marital satisfaction and its perceptions of marital quality and stability. On the other ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 16 hand, individualistic cultures suggest that marriage may be perceived as satisfying when it fulfills individual needs and goals of husbands and wives rather than fulfilling specific responsibilities and obligations associated with familial tasks (Amato, 2009; LaLonde et al., 2004). For this project, I focus primarily on collectivistic views of marriage including collaborative communication, mutual support, and shared power which communally benefit partners in marriages. Marital Arrangements Matter While many factors predict and shape marital quality, Carlson and associates (2020) suggest that the way in which couples divide routine household tasks appears to be one of the top three most influential factors to couples’ quality of marriage (also see Geiger, 2016). This more equal sharing of family tasks, or egalitarian divisions requires direct, open communication which can influence couples’ marital quality for good (Carlson et al., 2016). Further, individuals in romantic relationships who stive to mutually support their partner and share power equally may also enjoy greater marital satisfaction (Carbonneau et al., 2019; Knudson-Martin, 2013; Leonhardt et al., 2019). These skills along with others, can be gained through attending relationship education courses which is another factor that can positively influence marital quality (Halford, 2011; Hawkins et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2018). Relationship Education According to Markman and Rhoades (2012), relationship education (RE) is broadly defined as “efforts or programs that provide education, skills and principles that help individuals and couples increase their chances of having healthy and stable relationships” (p. 169). The goal for RE is to provide couples with skills that can build or strengthen the foundation for a positive ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 17 marriage (Halford, 2011). It takes a different approach than couples therapy by focusing more primarily on prevention instead of intervention (Burr & Hubler, 2021). Effectiveness of Relationship Education Numerous meta-analyses of studies on relationship education explain the effectiveness of taking a prevention-based approach (Hawkins & Erickson, 2015; Hawkins et al., 2008). Various RE programs provide couples with knowledge and skills to mitigate conflict and navigate difficult issues both short- and long-term (Markman & Rhoades, 2012; Hawkins et al., 2008; Hawkins & Erickson, 2015; Stanley et al., 2014). Further evidence on the effectiveness of RE shows increased marital quality and stability as well as healthy communication (Hawkins et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2018) of couples who participate in various curriculum-based or assessment with feedback programs (Commerford & Hunter, 2016). Who Benefits Most from Relationship Education? Couples at greater risk of marital distress tend to display the most benefit from relationship education (Allen et al., 2012). Such risks can be the associated with cohabitation prior to committing to marriage (Rhodes et al., 2015), history of infidelity (Allen et al., 2012), and sociodemographic risks including economic struggle, family instability, and minority status (Amato, 2014; Stanley et al., 2014). Couples with acute adversities such as experienced aggression and alcohol abuse may benefit less from RE (Williamson et al., 2015). Best Practices for Relationship Education Best practices for relationship education which may create the most beneficial outcomes consist of careful consideration on the part of the facilitator (Stanley et al., 2020). Some items facilitators may consider include whether to serve couples versus individuals, what the format and dosage should be, what approach they’ll take, what recruitment will look like, what the ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 18 barriers to participation might be, and how to maintain a healthy and professional relationship between themselves and the participants (Stanley et al., 2020). By thinking clearly about the environment and setting of the RE as well as the population the facilitator is serving, decisions about what will provide the most benefit will create opportunities for success (Stanley et al., 2020). Egalitarian Families Research explains that sharing domestic labor between partners is optimal for romantic couples’ overall marital quality, with the strongest association reported among women (Carlson et al., 2016; Carson et al., 2018; Carlson et al., 2020; Schieman et al., 2018). This type of egalitarian lifestyle is seen, on average, as more fair than other familial arrangements and contributes to reported increases in marital satisfaction (Amato et al., 2003; Carslon et al., 2016; Schieman et al., 2018). Further, Carlson and associates (2020) explain that “relationship satisfaction is important for both individual- and couple-level wellbeing, and perhaps in no area of couples’ lives is it more scrutinizing than the day-to-day aspects of household living: shared routine housework” (p. 2). Egalitarianism can be defined as views that support equity (Ogolsky et al., 2014). It is described by Kornrich and colleagues (2013) as a lifestyle involving shared, flexible, and fair roles and responsibilities regarding family life. Koenig (2018) clarified that egalitarian gender role expectations assume that household, economic, and social responsibilities are discussed and divided between both partners in a romantic dyad. Egalitarian lifestyles do not indicate a complete equal sharing of responsibilities but are focused on moving toward greater gender equity (Geist & Cohen, 2011). Carlson and associates (2020) explain egalitarian lifestyles to include a 35-65% division of routine domestic labor within households. Romantic dyads who ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 19 live egalitarian lifestyles find divisions of unpaid household responsibilities to be most equitable and report greatest levels of mutual satisfaction within their relationship when these labors are perceived to be shared equally (Amato et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2020). Feelings of equity surrounding the gendered division of labor depend on what people think they deserve and thus, Qian and Sayer (2016) suggest that perceived equity is conditional to some degree. Societal Shift in Gendered Division of Labor While many aspects of sociocultural life have changed to become more inclusive of gender equity, changes in the gendered division of labor or the “gender revolution” (Carlson et al., 2018) have shifted relatively slow, leaving traditional patterns of gender roles to permeate the minds and behaviors of society at large (Carlson et al., 2018; Galinskey et al., 2011; Geist & Cohen, 2011; Gerson, 2010; Kornrich et al., 2013). The expectations for women to be more submissive and less capable than their intimate male partners (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013), as well as assume the majority of the household responsibilities still remain among common societal norms (Papp, 2018). Because many childcare responsibilities remain predominately with female parents/partners, Ali and colleagues (2022) explain that certain gender role expectations are not easily accepted or changed. Kornrich and associates (2013) shared that, “although this debate can resemble a struggle over whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, evidence is accumulating that U.S. husbands are, in fact, doing more unpaid family work, particularly in the realm of child-care than did their counterparts of yesteryear” (p.2). This finding explains that egalitarian attitudes are growing in younger men and influencing their involvement in childcare and household tasks (Gerson, 2010; Hofferth et al., 2012). Since the 1960s, men’s proportional contribution to family responsibilities including housework, shopping, and childcare has increased significantly from less than one-fifth ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 20 to more than one-third by the twenty-first century (Bianchi et al., 2000; Hook, 2006; Fisher et al., 2006). Shifts in family behaviors and aspirations of contemporary couples are narrowing the gap in gendered household labor tasks (Bianchi et al., 2012; Carlson et al., 2016). Egalitarianism within couples is becoming the cultural ideal (Gerson, 2010; Kornrich et al., 2013) as research is showing an increase in greater marital quality and familial strength of couples living egalitarian lifestyles (Carslon et al., 2016; Carlson et al., 2020; Goldscheider et al., 2015). Egalitarian Families Impact on Couples Equitable marital practices are salient to couple outcomes in the United States (Bellani et al., 2018). The majority of young adults indicate preferences for egalitarian relationships (Gerson, 2010), explaining attitudinal shifts in perceptions of domestic labor responsibilities (Carlson et al., 2016) and gender role attitudes (Mize et al., 2021) within marriage. According to a report from Pew Research (2016), more than half of couples (56%) expressed that sharing household chores is very important to a successful marriage. Further, in a study evaluating the effects of the division of housework on couples’ communication and relationship satisfaction, Carlson and associates (2020) found that egalitarian divisions of household responsibilities are best for couples’ well-being. When one person in a couple is primarily responsible for family tasks, that person’s relationship satisfaction most often suffers (Carlson et al., 2020). On the other hand, couples who equitably share routine family tasks of cleaning, laundry, and shopping, report higher levels marital stability as well as less marital dissonance than couples who live more traditional lifestyles (Amato et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2016; Carlson et al., 2018; Lee, 2022; Schieman et al., 2018). Egalitarian arrangements are also found to influence couples’ level of conflict. Research from Cooke (2006) explain that more equal divisions of labor create a buffer for marital conflict, ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 21 lowering the likelihood for divorce. This marital conflict buffer is explained by researchers to be created by the shared levels of relative gender power within egalitarian marriages (Cooke, 2006; Leonhardt et al., 2019). Further, Gottman (2011) explained that there seems to be a correlational relationship between egalitarian couples’ feelings of empowerment and engaging in relational practices such as high support and caregiving that promotes individual well-being and marital quality. Leonhardt and associates (2019) found that “it is beneficial for wives and husbands to both report a relationship of shared power, possibly signaling a joint pursuit for shared influence and equal partnership” (p. 9). This equal partnership embodies an egalitarian, “power with” approach, where both partners seek to mutually support each other’s sense of power within the dyad (Leonhardt et al., 2019). Further, how couples divide and aspire to divide, both routine and nonroutine household labor influences sexual frequency and partners’ sexual satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2016; Kornrich et al., 2013). Couples who live egalitarian lifestyles report high levels of emotional closeness and intimacy (Lively et al., 2010; Schwartz, 1995). Carlson and associates (2016) found that “satisfaction with and perceptions of fairness of housework performed are central to couples’ sexual intimacy” (p. 977). This explains that dyads who share more egalitarian divisions of domestic labor report higher satisfaction of sexual intimacy today than they did during the past two decades (Carlson et al., 2016). Further findings express that egalitarian couples of today have the highest levels of sexual frequency, which they describe to be mediated by the perception of housework equity when compared to counter-conventional couples (Carlson et al., 2016). These findings were reciprocated by Johnson and colleagues (2016) explaining that when men contribute equitably to domestic labor, the couple benefits from more frequent and satisfying future sex. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 22 Egalitarian Families Impact on Children Bandura (1977) explains that most behaviors exhibited by individuals are either “deliberately or inadvertently learned through the influence of example” (p.5). Specific to family function, children learn about gender roles and responsibilities by observing the behaviors of their parents or guardians (Cano & Hofmeister, 2023; Marks et al., 2009; Smith & Hamon, 2016). Family roles are defined as “reoccurring patterns of behavior developed through interaction that family members use to fulfill family functions” (Gavin et al., 2012, p. 150). Established family roles help families create an environment of congruency where there is shared meaning or expectations about how various roles should and shouldn’t be pursued (Smith & Hamon, 2016). Farré and Vella (2013) explained that gender role attitudes stabilized during adolescence influence gender role behavior during adulthood. Further, Cunningham (2001) found that parents’ division of domestic labor predicted children’s later perception and participation in household tasks in their own marriages. Cunningham (2001) also explained that fathers’ contributions to stereotypical women chores such as cleaning, home maintenance, cooking, shopping, and caretaking, predicted sons’ participation in the same type of household tasks in adulthood. These findings portray the salience of parents’ time spent equitably on household responsibilities in children’s gender role development explaining that a “nontraditional allocation of housework is likely to promote egalitarian attitudes within the family” (Marks et al., 2009, p. 4). Egalitarianism also influences parenting styles and paternal involvement which impacts child outcomes. Parents who live egalitarian lifestyles tend to collaborate more equitably as coparents (Cowan & Cowan, 2018). Coparenting is characterized by Pruett and Pruett (2009) as a sense of solidarity and joint responsibility in shared childcare. Coparenting embodies the belief ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 23 that parents function as a team, involving warmer and more sensitive mothers and fathers who experience increased positive interactions with their children (Cowan & Cowan, 2018). Further, Cowan and Cowan (2018) explain that parents’ collaborative relationship may lead to children receiving higher academic achievement test scores as well as displaying fewer behavior problems at school. Coparenting sets the expectation that both mother’s and father’s take part in the routine care of children (Cowan & Cowan, 2018; Olsavsky et al., 2019). Paternal involvement in primary childcare has been found to be one of the most significant factors of the happiness and well-being of fathers (Wilson & Prior, 2011; Brandth & Kvande, 2017). When fathers involve themselves more equitably in childcare, they often experience a greater sense of obligation to their families (McClain, 2011), and improved respect for the caretaking mothers have done (Brandth & Kvande, 2017). On the other hand, concepts more commonly practiced in traditional families such as maternal gatekeeping (Allen & Hawkins, 1999) in which mothers block or limit fathers’ involvement in parenting and childcare, and intensive mothering (Arendell, 2000) where mothers alone devote complete attention to meeting every need of their children, negatively impact coparenting closeness (Olsavsky et al., 2019), and maternal and paternal psychological wellbeing (Leupp, 2019). To diminish the negative effects of these potentially harmful maternal parenting practices, mothers and fathers should work together to become active coparents (Pepin & Cotter, 2018; Schoppe-Sullivan & Altenburger, 2018). Equitable involvement in childcare and other routine family tasks, allows parents to develop bonds with their children and provides the opportunities for family to spend time together (Schober, 2012), leading to happier, more stable relationships (Hochschild & Machung, 2012; Norman et al., 2018). ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 24 Theories Related to Egalitarian Families Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory Smith and Hamon (2016) share a basic assumption of the social exchange theory which is that individuals are constrained by the choices they make and that these choices are made based off seeking maximum profits with minimal costs. In relating social exchange theory to the sharing of family tasks, Cooke (2006) explains that “couples negotiate the division of paid and unpaid labor to a unique equitable distribution within the family based on relative wages, preferences, and so on “(p. 443). A derivative of social exchange theory, equity theory (Adams, 1965; Walster et al., 1978) explains that individuals attempt to maximize rewards in interpersonal relationships. Equity theory emphasizes the significance of balance between contribution and compensation in partners’ interactions, explaining that fairness wields direct benefits on marriages (Walster et al., 1973). Carlson and associates (2020) explain that: When individuals perceive relationships as equitable – when the amount of rewards received is perceived as fair, deserved, and in balance with one’s contributions – they are most satisfied… those who feel they get less out of the relationship than they feel is fair are under benefited, while those who get more out of the relationship than they think is fair are over benefited (p. 3). Both types of inequity described by Carlson and associates (2020) produce negative feelings of distress, anger, and depression (Lively et al., 2010). Further, Bellani and colleagues (2018) found that the more wives feel under benefited, the less stable their marriages tend to be. Couples who perceive equitable divisions of routine household labor are more satisfied with their marriages than those who find their divisions to be inequitable (Amato et al., 2003; Chong & Mickelson, 2016; Greenstein, 1996), and those with egalitarian divisions are most ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 25 likely to experience equitable arrangements (Amato et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2016; Schieman et al., 2018). While feelings of equity are closely tied to egalitarianism, especially for women, not all women agree that conventional or traditional arrangements of routine household tasks are inequitable (Carson et al., 2016; Schieman et al., 2018; Greenstein, 1996). This explains that perceived equity about the division of gendered labor is partially conditional because feelings of equity depend on what individuals believe they deserve (Greenstien, 1996; Qian & Sayer, 2016). Carlson and associates (2020) suggest this perception of equity in a marriage influences marital quality through the way couples communicate with one another. Why Egalitarian Marriages Thrive Collaborative Communication According to Carlson and colleagues (2020), “strong communication skills help couples improve the long-term, global health of the relationship in a positive and constructive fashion that leads to mutual satisfaction” (p.15). Couples who live egalitarian lifestyles report greater levels of communication in their romantic partnership (Carlson et al., 2017). One explanation for this outcome is that egalitarian-minded couples do not construct their marriages on behavioral gender norms (Sanchez & Thomson, 1997; Carlson et al., 2019). This factor requires couples to practice more collaborative teamwork to negotiate daily arrangements of family tasks and domestic divisions of labor (Carlson et al., 2017). Research by Carlson and associates (2020) found that high-quality communication from wives alone is not adequate to achieve egalitarian lifestyles. Instead, they found that “men’s communication quality appears to explain nearly all of the association between women’s perceived equity and relationship satisfaction” (Carlson et al., 2020, p. 14). While a couple’s perceived level of fairness regarding equitable divisions of housework may lead to increased ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 26 marital quality and better relationship communication, more research is needed to inform this assumption (Carlson et al., 2020). Mutual Support and Shared Power Egalitarian couples who mostly agree on equal distributions of power between partners create the reality of mutual support and empowerment within partnerships (Leonhardt et al., 2019). According to Knudson-Martin (2013), when both partners feel mutually supported and empowered in their relationship, the couple is more likely to experience healthy processes of vulnerability, empathy, and teamwork which potentially leads to reciprocal benefits in marital quality. This joint pursuit of shared influence and equal partnership impacts partners’ autonomy support and self-determination (Leonhardt et al., 2019; Gottman, 2011). Autonomy support is defined by Carbonneau and associates (2019) as, “providing choice and options to a relationship partner, nurturing his/her inner motivational resources, acknowledging his/her feelings, and empathizing with his/her perspectives” (p. 875). When partners within marriages take responsibility for supporting their spouse’s mutual influence and autonomy, partners experience joint empowerment, and marital quality is positively impacted (Carbonneau et al., 2019; Knudson-Martin, 2013; Leonhardt et al., 2019). This positive impact is something more families can enjoy as they work towards a healthy egalitarian lifestyle within their homes. Purpose Creating and nourishing a meaningful, high-quality romantic relationship is often a central component to the human experience (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Couples’ marital quality remains one of the strongest predictors of personal physical and psychological well-being (Carlson & Kail, 2018; Slatcher & Schoebi, 2017). While many factors predict and shape marital satisfaction, Carlson and associates (2020) suggest that the way in which couples divide routine ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 27 household tasks appears to significantly influence couples’ quality of marriage. This more equal sharing of family tasks, or egalitarian divisions requires direct, open communication, mutual support, and shared power which can further influence couples’ marital quality for good (Carlson et al., 2016). The impact of egalitarian lifestyles or non-traditional family arrangements on couples’ marital quality is the focus on this study. Within the last decade, research has found that most young adults indicate preferences for egalitarian relationships (Gerson, 2010), explaining attitudinal shifts in perceptions of domestic labor responsibilities (Carlson et al., 2016) and gender role attitudes (Mize et al., 2021). With an increased number of young adults seeking more egalitarian or non-traditional family arrangements (Gerson, 2010; Mize et al., 2021), more research explaining the benefits of and best practices associated with this lifestyle is vital to the field of relationship studies and education, and the ongoing gender revolution occurring in the United States (Pessin, 2018). Further, there is a lack of disseminated knowledge and education on how to achieve this type of egalitarian living. Therefore, the purpose of this study will be to explore how the knowledge of effective egalitarian relationship dynamics impact individuals’ attitudes towards collaborative communication between partners, shared power within couples, mutual support, and egalitarian relationships in general. This research project seeks to answer the following question: After receiving relationship education on egalitarian living in marriage, what if any attitudinal shifts towards egalitarian lifestyles or non-traditional family arrangements occurred? ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 28 Methods This quasi-experimental research study used qualitative and quantitative questionnaire data collected in three waves over the course of two weeks. The questionnaires collected data comprised of five sections: 1) marital satisfaction of participants, 2) romantic relationship gender ideologies, 3) perception of personal romantic relationship, 4) quality of partner’s communication, and 5) general demographics of participants. The data was then coded by themes to understand how egalitarian dynamics affect marital quality. Participants also viewed two instructional, online videos during their participation in this study. The first was embedded into the initial questionnaire and shared a basic overview of egalitarian couples, benefits of egalitarian living, and the skill of collaborative communication. The second video instructed the participants on mutual support and shared power within marriage. It was emailed to participants one week after the initial questionnaire was completed. A follow-up questionnaire was sent two weeks after the initial questionnaire and comprised of the same questions presented in the initial questionnaire. Participants Following institutional review board approval, the participants involved in the study were recruited using convenience sampling via social media platforms, The Department of Family Studies at Weber State (and other programs in the Moyes College of Education), and by word of mouth. The parameters of this study required that participants must either be married or in a committed romantic relationship to participate. The final sample consisted of 52 individuals who completed all three waves of the study. Because there were no financial incentives for participation in this study, participant attrition occurred. The first wave contained 171 completed responses and wave two contained 115 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 29 responses. Age of participants ranged from 19 to 78 (M = 37.28). The sample was primarily female (81%) and Caucasian (92%). Remaining participants were Hispanic or Latino (3%) and Asian (2%) as the next largest groups. Regarding income, 1% or participants reported under $20,000, 3% in the $20,000 to $39,999 range, 8% in the $40,000 to $59,999 range, 13% in the $60.000 to $79,999 range, 14% in the $80,000 to $99,999 range, 16% in the $100,000 to $119,999, 15% in the $120,000 to $139,999 range, and 30% in the $140,000 and above range. For highest education level obtained, a large percentage of the participants reported obtaining a bachelor’s degree (44%). Of the remaining participants, 5% reported a high school diploma or GED equivalence, 20% reported some college, 12% with associate degrees, 18% with master’s degrees, and 1% with a professional degree (JD or MD). For relationship status, most reported being married (95%). The remaining 5% were either in a committed, long-term relationship (3%) or single (2%). Of the participants who reported being married, the mean duration of marriage was 15.1 years. Participants averaged three children each and of those with dependents at home, most of them were eight years of age or younger (63%). In terms of religiosity, 89% reported being religious and of those participants, 79% reported weekly attendance. The greatest number of participants reside in Utah (88%). Remaining participants reside in Arizona (2%), Florida (2%), and Idaho (2%) as the next largest groups. Instrument The initial questionnaire comprised of 16 questions combining Likert scale, multiple choice, and short response. The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Measurement (Fowers & Olson, 1993) as well as various questions from the General Social Survey (GSS) and the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) were all used as measurements in my study. Responses from the questionnaire were self-reported information which explored relationship satisfaction, quality of ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 30 communication, and gender ideologies and perceptions of gender roles within romantic relationships. The questionnaire also collected general demographic information about the participants including questions about race, age, sex, religiosity, parental status, educational attainment, and income. Procedures After participants answered an initial questionnaire, a short, online, instructional video sharing an overview on egalitarian living, the benefits of egalitarianism on marital quality, and collaborative communication was shared with simple homework applications for the participants to try over the course of one week. The average participant completed the initial questionnaire in approximately 12.5 minutes (Mseconds = 744). One week after participants answered the initial questionnaire and viewed the instructional video, they were emailed a second instructional video on mutual support and shared power within marriage. The average participant completed wave 2 of this study in approximately 6 minutes (Mseconds = 371). Two weeks after the initial questionnaire and instructional video, participants were emailed a post-questionnaire, including an opportunity for the participants to provide feedback to the researchers. The average participant completed the post-questionnaire in approximately 7 minutes (Mseconds = 414). Data from these questionnaires were used to understand what, if any, changes or attitudinal shifts were made in these participants’ views towards egalitarian living or non-traditional arrangements in marriage. Data Analysis The questionnaires were administered, and responses were gathered over the course of one and a half months. The researchers reviewed the responses for overall concepts and emerging patterns. The data were analyzed and interpreted to answer questions posed by the ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 31 research on the impact of egalitarian living or non-traditional marital arrangements on marital quality and satisfaction. The researchers collected the qualitative and quantitative data over time and then coded the data for analyses. The qualitative data were coded by identified patterns, categories, and reoccurring themes. The researchers then moved beyond the patterns and themes of the analysis to develop a theory based on a review of the impact and consequences of both egalitarian and traditional marital arrangements on marital quality and satisfaction. Limitations The limitations of this study relate to the non-diverse sample as well as the convivence sampling procedures used to gather participants. The sample was primarily Caucasian, female, middle-class, middle-aged, well-educated, and highly religious individuals from Utah. The participants fit a religious demographic that is well-known in Utah which influenced how the participants responded to the study. The results from this study may not represent more diverse groups, and further research with a more diverse audience is needed to better generalize the results. With no financial incentive for the three-wave design of the study, notable attrition (70%) was acknowledged. Because the sample size of the third wave of this study was relatively small, some of the findings from the data should be interpreted with caution. Finally, participants provided feedback that a mid-week reminder email of what they learned in each of the instructional videos would have been helpful to refresh their memories of the information they were asked to apply throughout the week. Results Aside from the instructional video and demographic data, the pre-questionnaire and postquestionnaire included the same questions divided into four sections: 1) marital satisfaction of participants, 2) romantic relationship gender ideologies, 3) perception of personal romantic ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 32 relationship, and 4) quality of partner’s communication. The pre- and post-questionnaire data were then compared and analyzed for changes and/or improvements in participants’ responses after they received relationship education on skills used by couples in egalitarian marital arrangements. Data from the open-ended questions were also reviewed and organized by codes and themes according to the research question of this study which was: after receiving relationship education on egalitarian living in marriage, what, if any, attitudinal shifts towards egalitarian lifestyles or non-traditional family arrangements occurred? The results are divided into four sections of the questionnaire. Marital Satisfaction of Participants This section comprised of 5-point Likert scale questions from the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (Fowers & Olson, 1993). Same questions used in this part of the study can be found in Appendix A. The majority of the pre- and post-questionnaire data were very similar with few momentous differences noted after participants viewed both instructional videos on egalitarian living. One of the most intreguing change seen between the pre- and postquestionnaire occurred in the question regarding expressions of affection and relating sexually. Participants responded that only 5.7% were moderately dissatisfied or dissatisfied with their expressions of affections and sexual relationship compared to 18.5% from the pre-questionnaire. This finding supports qualitative evidence explaining that husbands’ participation in household labor is often linked to wives’ reports of greater marital quality (Amato et al., 2003; Stevens et al., 2005). Further research shares a possible reason why: “wives feel more supported and happier in their marriages when their husbands do more chores and these positive feelings promote more sex as a side benefit” (Kornrich et al., 2012, p. 5). ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 33 Another interesting finding was that fewer people agreed with the statement, “I have some needs that are not being met by our relationship (16% difference between pre- and postquestionnaire data). This finding supports that when egalitarian couples share routine family tasks and responsibilties as well as utilize skills that encourage mutual support and powersharing, each partners’ autonomy support and self-determination improves (Leonhardt et al., 2019; Gottman, 2011), which then impacts marital satisfaction. The last interesting finding from this part of the study was that fewer participants reported feeling dissatisfied with how they and their partner handled their parenting responsibilities (12.6% different between pre- and postquestionnaire data). This finding supports data from Cowan and Cowan (2018) that parents who live egalitarian lifestyles tend to collaborate more equitably as coparents, meaning they tend to work together as a team and remain unified in their parenting styles. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 34 Romantic Relationship Gender Ideologies This section comprised of 5-point Likert scale questions from the General Social Survey (GSS) and the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). Examples of the questions included in this study were can be found in Appendix B. While much of the pre- and post-questionnaire data were again quite similar, there were positive changes in participants gender ideologies. One interesting finding was that after participants viewed both instructional videos on egalitarian living, they were less likely to agree with traditional gender roles and partner jobs within family life (22.2% pre-questionnaire to 9.6% post-questionnaire). Another interesting finding is that fewer participants agreed that men and women have specific professions within society and that there should not be any intermixing (9.2% pre-questionnaire to 1.9% post-questionnaire). Another finding explained that participants were less likely to agree that it is better for all involved if men are the achievers outside the home and women are the caretakers and homemakers (31.4% pre-quesitonnaire to 21.2% post-questionnaire). One more interesting finding is that participants were more likely to respond to the majority of the questions with “neither agree nor disagree” in the post-questionnaire than in the pre-questionnaire. These findings explain that participants may have begun questioning the gender ideologies they had prior to this study, showing a possible additudinal shift in their gender ideolgies after learning about egalitarian living in marriage. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 35 Perception of Personal Romantic Relationship In this section, participants were asked what type of romantic relationship they had before viewing the instructional videos on egalitarian living. They were given the option to choose egalitarian, tradition, or other, with a description explaining what each of the choices were. Of the responses, 60.8% shared they lived in an egalitarian arrangement, 30.1% reported a traditional arrangement, and 9.1% responded with “other”. Those that responded with “other” shared they utilized a combination of both egalitarian and traditional practices in their romantic relationships. After viewing both instructional videos, participants were asked the following question, “From what you learned about egalitarian couples and families, do you want your marriage to become more egalitarian? As a reminder, egalitarian marriages have shared, fair, and flexible roles and responsibilities regarding family life.” While 46.2% of participants reported already having an egalitarian marriage, 53.8% shared they wanted more of an egalitarian ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 36 arrangement in their romantic relationship. None of the participants in the study responded with the answer “no” to this question. After participating in this study, all respondents either believed they already had an egalitarian marriage or wanted their marriage to become more egalitarian. Quality of Partner’s Communication In this section of the pre- and post-study questionnaires, participants were asked to reflect on the communication patterns used in their romantic relationships. Questions were asked using a 5-point Likert scale measurement. Examples of questions comprising this section of the study can be found in Appendix C. When comparing pre- and post-questionnaire data, incremental but exciting, positive changes were found in more than half of the questions asked in this section of the study. After watching the instructional video on collaborative communication, more participants either somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that their partner listens to them when they need someone to talk to. Further, the post-questionnaire data showed that more participants strongly disagreed that their partner’s responded by using the silent treatment in arguments. Another interesting finding was that less participants found it hard to tell their partner certain things because they were not sure how their partner would react. These positive micro-changes towards healthy communications patterns support the finding from Carlson and associates (2017) that couples who live egalitarian lifestyles report greater levels of communication in their romantic partnership. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 37 Attitudinal Shifts Towards Egalitarian Arrangements The data from this study showed that of the participants who did not already have an egalitarian marriage, 100% of them desired this marital arrangement after receiving relationship education on the topic. 46.2% of the respondents said they already had an egalitarian marriage, and 53.8% wanted their marriage to become more egalitarian. None of the participants expressed a desire to have or maintain a traditional marital arrangement. Qualitative data from the post-questionnaire showed positive feedback of what participants learned about egalitarian living in marital arrangements and the benefits associated. The participants shared their experiences with the information they found insightful from the two instructional videos. They also shared the applications of egalitarian living they practiced in their marriage or long-term relationship during their two weeklong participation in the study. The data were then analyzed to find common themes and patterns throughout the feedback of the participants. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 38 Happier Homes and Romantic Relationships Of the responses shared on what participants learned about egalitarian families, several explained an increase in marital happiness and harmony. One participant said: I was reminded of why life has felt so harmonious lately in my own home, and it is because of migrating to more of an egalitarian style marriage. I think shared power and respectful communication is incredibly important to both partners being at their best, which leads to the relationship being at its best. Another respondent explained that “with balance and shared responsibility comes a happier marriage.” Participants further explained an increased desire to give and serve in their relationship because of what they learned. Another shared that “setting personal needs aside, doing little things of service, and helping with the workload of house chores has made a big difference in the wellness of my marriage and overall relationship.” Egalitarianism Looks Different in Every Home There were various responses that shared similar thoughts of egalitarianism looking different in each individual romantic relationship. Similar findings by Kornrich and colleagues (2013) explained that egalitarianism is a lifestyle involving shared, flexible, and fair roles and responsibilities regarding family life. Further, Koenig (2018) shared that egalitarian gender role expectations assume that household, economic, and social responsibilities are discussed and divided between both partners in a romantic dyad. Because no couple is identical in needs, demographics, or lifestyles, egalitarianism does indeed look different in every household. One participant shared that “egalitarian living in family life doesn’t mean exactly the same. It will look different for each couple, but healthier relationships will come from supporting each other and taking part in shared responsibilities.” ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 39 Egalitarian Couples are Teammates with the Same Goal Of the participants that answered the open-ended question of what they learned about egalitarian families (49 responses), many used words such as, “team” (3), “equal” (4), “partner” or “partnership” (8), and “share(d)” (17) to explain how they felt about egalitarian marriages. One participant shared that their mindset had changed. They shared that when arguments arise, it has become easier to stay level-headed because they learned that egalitarian marriages are equal partnerships, and both partners are on the same team. This participant also shared that they’ve been approaching change as a team effort instead of thinking of it as a husband problem or wife problem. Another participant shared: My perspective is that my husband does indeed sacrifice a lot for our family. I tend to get caught up in what I do for the kids because it's all I do. I've been reminded that his contributions are valuable and working as a team is beautiful. A large majority of the participants caught the vision that egalitarian couples function as a unit of “we.” One participant shared that in egalitarian relationships, “both partners are mutually supported, equal and flexible in terms of roles and responsibilities. Not you work and I cook type marriages but rather we cook, and we clean.” Another shared that, “egalitarian living is not about both parties giving more than the other, but rather both giving their best efforts to understand and hear the other person and working in the best interests of the relationship together.” Overall, the feedback was very positive and can be partially summed up in the takeaways of one participant who said: “If [egalitarianism is] applied and enhanced in your home and family, the results could be endless! It would allow for more time in the home because responsibilities are being shared/supported mutually.” ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 40 Discussion Egalitarian marital arrangements are seen, on average, as more fair-minded than other familial arrangements and contribute to higher marital quality and satisfaction (Amato et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2016; Schieman et al., 2018). Participants in this study shared their experiences with learning and practicing skills used by successful egalitarian couples. Their insights supported similar findings of literature on the same topic (Carlson et al., 2019; Carlson et al., 2020; Kornrich et al., 2013). Participants shared feelings of more oneness or connectedness with their partner, greater support given and felt, increased attention to how power is shared in their relationship, and an overall increase in the happiness they felt in their marriage. The purpose of this study was to explore how the knowledge of effective egalitarian relationship skills and dynamics impact individuals’ attitudes towards egalitarian relationships in general. Through participation in viewing the instructional videos found in this study, as well as implementing skills they learned regarding collaborative communication, shared power, and mutual support, all participants in this study came away with either a desire to continue their egalitarian lifestyle or to have more of an egalitarian arrangement in their romantic relationship. Participants also reported more positive interactions with their partners by using techniques they learned in the instructional videos. Because of how this study was designed, this finding supports the significance of relationship education as well as the positive outcomes it can produce (Markman & Rhoades, 2012; Hawkins et al., 2008; Hawkins & Erickson, 2015; Stanley et al., 2014). ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 41 Collaborative Communication In the instructional video on collaborative communication, participants were taught the Speaker/Listener Technique (Stanley et al., 1997) and how to use I-statements to communicate more effectively. The majority of the participants used I-messages (55%) while 34% used the Speaker/Listener Technique. The remaining 11% either reported forgetting to apply the skills they learned or sharing that they already use these techniques to aid in communicating effectively with their partner. Findings showed that participants had more positive, effective interactions with their partner by listening with the intention to understand and communicating openly, without placing blame. Other findings explained lowering contention in the home, expressing oneself better, and resolving conflict quicker. One participant shared: [My partner] was more willing to dive into the rationale behind the issue. When we would argue, I felt like I would get the “smoke” of the issue and not arrive at the “fire” of the issue. We were able to better communicate and understand where we could not only hear each other but resolve to work on the issues together. Another participant responded that their conversations became substantially more meaningful because they took the time to really listen to each other. Qualitative data from participants’ feedback on collaborative communication supported Carlson and colleagues (2020) findings in explaining that “strong communication skills help couples improve the long-term, global health of the relationship in a positive and constructive fashion that leads to mutual satisfaction” (p. 15). Overall, the feedback was extremely positive in the participants applications of the collaborative communication skills they learned in this study. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 42 Mutual Support and Shared Power In the instructional video on mutual support and shared power, participants were taught about the importance of sharing decision making power and supporting one another’s opinions and perspectives. Common themes from this data set showed participant understanding of how impactful sharing power and mutually supporting their partner can be on positively influencing marital quality. One participant shared that they learned how important it is to be open to differing opinions and sincerely consider and seek to understand one another’s viewpoints when making decisions. Knudson-Martin (2013) found similar results by sharing that when both partners feel mutually supported and empowered in their relationship, the couple is more likely to experience healthy processes of vulnerability, empathy, and teamwork. Another participant shared: There is often a power imbalance in marriages where the man feels like he has all the power because he is the patriarch, or the mom has most of the power because she is making most of the decisions for the home and family. Ultimately, I have learned how important it is to have shared "power" or influence over what happens in the home, regardless of historical gender roles. This finding supports Carlson and associates (2019) in explaining that egalitarian-minded couples do not construct their marriages on behavioral gender norms, rather they use collaborative teamwork to negotiate daily arrangements of family responsibilities. Other feedback from this study included the realization that shared power builds equity in a marriage, allowing other egalitarian dynamics to develop in a relationship. Overall, participants responded positively to the skills of shared power and mutual support that egalitarian couples utilize. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 43 Conclusion While there are many factors that impact and shape marital quality, the way in which couples divide domestic labor is one of the top three most influential factors (Carlson et al., 2020; Geiger, 2016). Romantic dyads who live egalitarian lifestyles find divisions of unpaid household responsibilities to be most equitable and report greatest levels of mutual satisfaction within their relationship when these labors are perceived to be shared equally (Amato et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2020). Egalitarian divisions require direct and open communication and can positively influence couples’ marital quality (Carlson et al., 2016). Further, couples who strive to mutually support their partner and share power equally may also enjoy great marital satisfaction (Carbonneau et al., 2019; Knudson-Martin, 2013; Leonhardt et al., 2019). These interpersonal skills along with others, can be gained through relationship education which is another factor that can positively influence marital quality (Halford, 2011; Hawkins et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2018). This study sought to discover whether individuals who received relationship education on egalitarian living in committed, romantic relationships experienced attitudinal shifts towards egalitarian lifestyles or non-traditional family arrangement. The study findings showed that of the participants that were not already living this type of arrangement, 100% of them desired more of an egalitarian lifestyle in their romantic relationships. By applying the egalitarian relationship skills taught in this study, participants shared that they experienced less conflict in communicating, more understanding of their partner’s perspective, and more support for shared decision making. As gender norms continue to shift within society and more couples learn effective skills used in egalitarian living, this study as well as other literature on the topic suggest ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES that romantic relationship quality will likely increase overall, which can sequentially create stronger families. 44 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 45 References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). Academic Press. Aizer, A, A., Chen, M. H., Mccarthy, E. P., Mendu, M. L., Koo, S., Wilhite, T. J., Graham, P. L., Choueiri, T. K., Hoffman, K. E., Martin, N. E., Hu, J. C., & Nguyen, P. L. (2013). Marital status and survival in patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(31), 3869—3876. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.6489 Alder, E. S. (2010). Age, education level, and length of courtship in relation to marital satisfaction. (Master's thesis, Pacific University). Retrieved from: http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/145 Ali, P. A., McGarry, J., & Maqsood, A. (2022). Spousal role expectations and marital conflict: Perspectives of men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9-10), 82-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520966667 Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.2307/353894 Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Loew, B., & Markman, H. J. (2012). The effects of marriage education for Army couples with a history of infidelity. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026742 Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S. J. (2003). Continuity and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00001.x ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 46 Amato, P. R. (2014). Does social and economic disadvantage moderate the effects of relationship education on couples? An analysis of data from the 15-month Building Strong Families evaluation. Family Relations, 63, 343-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12069 Amato, P. R. (2009). Institutional, companionate, and individualistic marriage: A social psychological perspective on marital change. In H. E. Peters & C. M. K. Dush (Eds.), Marriage and family: perspectives and complexities (pp.75-90). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pete14408-007 Arendell, T. (2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1192-1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2000.01192.x Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory. (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall. Barstad, A. (2014). Equality is Bliss? Relationship quality and the gender division of housework. Social Forces, 79(1), 191-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522246 Bartle-Haring, S., Shannon, S., Holowacz, E., Patton, R., & Lotspeich-Younkin, F. (2018). Is there a “sweet spot” for age at marriage and positive marital outcomes? Journal of Family Issues, 39(4), 1085-1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16686135 Be, D. Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2013). Prospective associations between marital adjustment and life satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20(4), 728-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12011 Bellani, D., Andersen, G. E., & Pessin, L. (2018). When equity matters for marital stability: Comparing Germany and U.S. couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(9), 1273-1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517709537 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 47 Bianchi, S. M. Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division on housework. Social Forces, 79(1), 191-228. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/79.1.191 Bianchi, S. M., Sayer, L. C., Milkie, M. A., & Robinson J. P. (2012). Housework: Who did, does or will do it and how much does it matter? Social Forces, 91(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos120 Bodenmann, G., Falconier, M. K., & Randall, A. K. (2019). Editorial: Dyadic coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1498), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.2289/fpsyg.2019.01498 Bookwala, J. (2005). The Role of Marital Quality in Physical Health During the Mature Years. Journal of Aging and Health, 17(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264304272794 Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. d., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Understanding and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 862-879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00059.x Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2017). Fathers on leave alone in Norway: Changes and continuities. In M. O’Brien, K. Wall (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Work-Life Balance and Gender Equality. Springer. Brown, E. Orburch, T. L., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2008). Religiosity and marital stability among Black American and White American couples. Family Relations, 57, 186-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00493.x ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 48 Burr, B. K., & Hubler, D. S. (2021). Emerging ideas. Which relationship service fits best? Teaching the difference between relationship education and couples therapy. Family Relations, 70, 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12417 Cano, T. & Hofmeister, H. (2023). The intergenerational transmission of gender: Paternal influences on children’s gender attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 85(1), 193214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12863 Carbonneau, N., Martos, T., Sallay, V., Rochette, S., & Koestner, R. (2019). Examining the associations of autonomy and directive support given and received with relationship satisfaction in the context of goals that romantic partners have for one another. Motivation and Emotion, 43, 874-882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09792-8 Carlson, D. L. (2012). Deviations from desired age at marriage: Mental health differences across marital status. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 743-758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.3012.00995.x Carlson, D. L., Miller, A. J., & Rudd, S. (2020). Division of housework, communication and couples’ relationship satisfaction. Socius: Sociology Research for a Dynamic World, 6, 117. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120924805 Carlson, D. L., & Soller, B. (2019). Sharing’s more fun for everyone? Gender attitudes, sexual self-efficacy, and sexual frequency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81, 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12524 Carlson, D. L., & Kail, B. L. (2018). Socioeconomic variation in the association of marriage with depressive symptoms. Social Science Research, 71, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.008 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 49 Carlson, D. L., Miller, A. J., & Sassler, S. (2018). Stalled for whom? Change in the division of particular housework tasks and their consequences for middle- to low-income couples. Socius: Sociological Review for a Dynamic World, 4, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118765867 Carlson, D. L., Miller, A., J., Sassler, S., & Hanson, S. (2016). The gendered division of housework and couples’ sexual relationships: A reexamination. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 975-995. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12313 Carlson, D. L., Miller, A. J., & Sassler, S. (2017, August). The gender revolution in action: Cohort change in the association of housework performance and sexual frequency and satisfaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, CA. Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 743-761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2010.00728.x Chong, A., & Mickelson, K. D. (2016). Perceived fairness and relationship satisfaction during the transition to parenthood: The mediating role of spousal support. Journal of Family Issues, 37(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13516764 Christensen, A. Eldridge, K., Catta-Preta, A. B., Lim, V. R., & Santagata, R. (2006). Crosscultural consistency of the demand/withdrawal interaction pattern in couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1029-1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2006.00311.x ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 50 Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 73(1), 114-128. https://doi.org/10/1037/0022-3514.73.1.114 Commerford, J., & Hunter, C. (2016). Marriage and relationship education: Recent research findings. Family Matters, 97, 55-66. Cooke, L. P. (2006). ‘Doing Gender’ in context: Household bargaining and the risk of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Society, 112(2), 442-472. https://doi.org/10.1086/506417 Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2019). Enhancing parenting effectiveness, fathers’ involvement, couple relationship quality, and children’s development: Breaking down silos in family policy making and service delivery. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12301 Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5 Cunningham, M. (2001). Parental influence on the gendered division of housework. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 184-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657414 Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religious heterogamy and marital conflict: Findings from the National Survey of Families and Households. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 551-576. Day, R. D., & Acock, A. (2013). Marital well-being and religiousness as mediated by relational virtue and equality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01033.x DeMaris, A. (2007). The role of relationship inequity in marital disruption. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507075409 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 51 Dobrowolska, M., Groyecka-Bernard, A., Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Ahmadi, K., Alghraibeh, A. M., Aryeety, R. Bertoni, A., Bettache, K., Blazejewska, M., Bodemann, G., Bortolini, T. S., Bosc, C., Butovskaya, M., Castro, F. N., Cetinkaya, H., Cunha, D., David, D., … Sorokowska, A. (2020). Global perspective on marital satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(8817), 1-15. https://doi.org/20.3390/su12218817 Dyk, P. H. (2004). Complexity of family life among low-income and working poor: Introduction to the special issue. Family Relations, 53(2), 122-126. Elo, I. T. (2009). Social class differentials in health and mortality: Patterns and explanations in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 553-572. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115929 Falconier, M. K., Jackson, J. B., Hilpert, P., & Bodenmann, G. (2015). Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 28-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.002 Farré, L., & Vella, F. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of gender role attitudes and its implications for female labour force participation. Economica, 80(318), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12008 Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47-77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47 Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H., & Kemp-Fincham, S. I. (1997). Marital quality: A new theoretical perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 275-304). Guilford Press. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 52 Fincham, F. D., Ajayi, C., and Beach, S. R. H. (2011). Spirituality and marital satisfaction in African American couples. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(4), 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1037.a0023909 Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49, 797-809. https://doi.org/10/2307/351973 Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (3), 630-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2010.00722.x Fisher, K., Egerton, M., Cershuny, J. I., & Robinson, J. P. (2006). Gender convergence in the American Heritage Time Use Study (SHTUS). Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9017-y Fowers, B. J. (1991). His and her marriage: A multivariate study of gender and marital satisfaction. Sex Roles, 24, 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288892 Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A brief research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 176-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/08933200.7.2.176 Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2011). Times are changing: Gender and generation at work and home. Families and Work Institute. Gavin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., & Brommel, B.J. (2012). Family communication: Cohesion and change. (8th Ed.). Pearson Education. Geiger, A. W. (2016, November 30). Sharing chores a key to good marriage, says majority of married adults. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/11/30/sharing-chores-a-key-to-good-marriage-say-majority-of-married-adults/ ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 53 Geist, C., & Cohen, P. N. (2011) Headed toward equity? Housework change in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 832-844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00850.x Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America. Oxford University Press. Goddard, H. W., Marshall, J. P., Olson, J. R., & Dennis, S. A. (2012). Character strengths and religiosity as predictors of marital satisfaction. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11(1), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2011.613308 Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegard, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x Goodman, M. A., Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. (2012). Exploring transformational processes and meaning in LDS marriages. Marriage and Family Review, 48, 555-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2012.691081 Goodman, M. A., Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Layton, E. (2013). Religious faith and transformational processes in marriage. Family Relations, 62(5), 808-823. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12038 Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples. Guilford Press. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Psychology Press. Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender ideology and perceptions of fairness of the division of housework: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces, 74(3), 1029-1042. https://doi.org/10.1093/SF/74.3.1029 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 54 Halford, W. K. (2011). Marriage and relationship education: What works and how to provide it. Guilford Press. Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 723-734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012584 Hawkins, A. J., & Erickson, S. E. (2015). Is couples and relationship education effective for lower-income participants? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 5968. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000045 Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84(1), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0103 Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23(3), 392-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192313X02023003004 Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. Harper & Row. Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin. Hofferth, S., Pleck, J., Goldscheider, F., Curtin, S., & Hrapezynski, K. (2012). Changing family structure and men’s motivation for parenthood and parenting in the US. Pp. 57-80 in Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 2nd ed., edited by N. J. Cabrera and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda. Taylor & Francis. Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 55 Hook, J. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965-2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 639-660. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100406 Hoppmann C. A., Gerstorf, D., Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W. (2011). Spousal interrelations in happiness in the Seattle Longitiduinal Study: Considerable similarities in levels of change over time. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020788 Hughes, M. F., Patterson, C. C., Appleton, K. M., Blankenberg, S., Woodside, J. V., Donnelly, M. B., Linden, G., Zeller, T., Esquirol, Y., & Kee, F. (2016). The predictive value of depressive symptoms for all-cause mortality: Findings from the PRIME Belfast study exampling the role of inflammation and cardiovascular risk markers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78(4), 401-411. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000289 Jackson, J. B., Miller, R. B., Oka, M., & Henry, R. G. (2014). Gender differences in marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 105-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12077 Jackson, G. L., Trail, T. E., Kennedy, D. P., Williamson, H. C., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2016). The salience and severity of relationship problems among low-income couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000158 Johnson, M. D., Galambos, N. L., & Anderson J. R. (2016). Skip the dishes? Not so fast! Sex and housework revisited. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000161 Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2020). Research on marital satisfaction and stability in the 2010s: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1). 100116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.2635 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 56 Karney B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychology Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 Karney, B. R. (2015). Why marriages change over time. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 557–579). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-020 Kaufman, G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter?: Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021001006 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Gouin, J. P., & Hantsoo, L. (2010). Close relationships, inflammation, and health. Neuroscience and biobehavioral Reviews, 35(1), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.09.003 Keicolt-Glaser, J. K., & Wilson, S. J. (2017). Lovesick: How couples’ relationships influence health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 421-443. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045111 Keicolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472-503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Malarkey, W. B., Chee, M. A., Newton, T. L., Cacioppo, J. T., Mao, H. Y., & Glaser, R. (1993). Negative behavior during marital conflict is associated with immunological down-regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199309000-00001 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 57 Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2010). Stress, food, and inflammation: Psychoneuroimmunology and nutrition at the cutting edge. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72, 365-369. https://doi.org/10.1079/PSY.0b013e3181dbf489 Kluwer, E. A., Heesink, J. A. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1997). The martial dynamics of conflict over the division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 635-653. https://doi.org/10/2307/353951 Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships. Family Processes, 52, 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12011 Kornrich, S., Brines, J., & Leupp, K. (2013). Egalitarianism, housework, and sexual frequency in marriage. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 26-50. https://doi.org.10.1177/0003122412472340 LaLonde, R. N., Hynie, M., Pannu, M., & Tatla, S. (2004). The role of culture in interpersonal relationships: Do second generation south Asian Canadians want a traditional partner? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 503-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104268386 Lawrence, E. M., Rogers, R. G. Zajacoba, A., & Wadsworth, T. (2018). Marital happiness, marital status, health, and longevity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 1539-1561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0009-9 Lee, Y. (2022). Lingering male breadwinner norms as predictors of family satisfaction and marital instability. Social Sciences, 11(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11020049 Leonhardt, N. D., Willoughby, B. J., Dyer, W. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2019). Longitudinal influence of shared marital power on marital quality and attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000566 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 58 Leupp, K. (2019). Even supermoms get the blues: Employment, gender attitudes, and depression. Society and Mental Health, 9(3), 316-333. https://doi.org/10.177/2156869318785406 Lively, K., Stellman, L. C., & Powell, B. (2010). Equity, emotion, and household division of labor. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 358-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510389012 Loscocco, K., & Walzer, S. (2013). Gender and the culture of heterosexual marriage in the United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12004 Madanianan, L. (2013). Marital satisfaction and demographic traits in an emigrant sample: Rasch Analysis. Procedia Social Behavioral Sciences, 107, 770-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.404 Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 321-338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.321 Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families, 1999-2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 805-827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2010.00732.x Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 559-596. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.15.4.559 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 59 Markman, H. J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2012). Relationship education research: Current status and further directions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 169-200. https://doi.org/10.1111j.1752-0606.2011.00247.x Marks, J., Bun, L. C., & McHale, S. M. (2009). Family patterns of gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9619-3 Martire, L. M., Schulz, R. Helgeson, V. S., Small, B. J., & Saghafi, E. M. (2010). Review and meta-analysis of couple-oriented interventions for chronic illness. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(3), 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9216-2 Martire, L. M. (2005). The “relative” efficacy of involving family in psychosocial interventions for chronic illness: Are there added benefits to patients and family members? Families, Systems, & Health, 23(3), 312-328. https://doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.23.3.312 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. McClain, L. (2011). Better parents, more stable partners: Union transitions among cohabiting parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741.3737.2011.00859.x Mize, T. D., Kaufman, G., & Petts, R. J. (2021). Visualizing shifts in gendered parenting attitudes during Covid-19. Socius, 7(1-3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023211013128 Moore, Q., Avellar, S., Patnaik, A., Covington, R., & Wu, A. (2018). Parents and child together: Effects of two healthy marriage programs for low-income couples (OPRE Report #201858). Mathematica Policy Research Reports. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/pact_hm_impacts_to_opre_b5 08.pdf ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 60 Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns, 1980-1997. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2), 292-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00253.x Neuman, M. D., & Werner, R. M. (2016). Marital status and postoperative functional recovery. JAMA Surgery, 151(2), 194-196. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3240 Norman, H., Elliot, M., & Fagan, C. (2018). Does fathers’ involvement in childcare and housework affect couples’ relationship stability? Social Science Quarterly, 99(5), 15991613. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12523 Ogolsky, B. G., Dennison, R. P., Monk, J. K. (2014). The role of couple discrepancies in cognitive and behavior egalitarianism in marital quality. Sex Roles, 70, 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0365-9 Olsavsky, A. L., Yan, J., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Dush, C. M. K. (2019). New fathers’ perception of dyadic adjustment: The role of maternal gatekeeping and coparenting closeness. Family Process, 59(2), 571-585. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp/12451 Olsen, J. R., Marshall, J. P. Goddard, H. W., & Schramm, D. G. (2016). Variations in predictors of marital satisfaction across more religious and less religious regions of the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1658-1677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14560643 Onyishi, E. I., Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., & Pipitone, R. N. (2012). Children and marital satisfaction in a non-Western sample: Having more children increased marital satisfaction among the Igbo people of Nigeria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 771-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.06.005 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 61 Papp, L. M. (2018). Topics of marital conflict in the everyday lives of empty nest couples and their implications for conflict resolution. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 17(1). 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2017.1302377 Pepin, J. R., & Cotter, D. A. (2018). Separating spheres? Diverging trends in youth’s gender attitudes about work and family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80, 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12434 Pessin, L. (2018). Changing gender norms and marriage dynamics in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(1), 25-41. https://doi.org/1111;jomf.12444 Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of marriage and Family, 69, 576-593. https://doi.org/10.1111.j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x Pruett, K., & Pruett, M. K. (2009). Partnership parenting: How men and women parent differently- Why it helps your kids and can strengthen your marriage. De Capo. Qian, Y., & Sayer, L. C. (2016). Division of labor, gender ideology, and marital satisfaction in East Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12274 Randall, A. K., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010 Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Allen, E. S. (2015). Can marriage education mitigate the risk associated with premarital cohabitation? Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 500-506. https://doi.org10.1037/fam0000081 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 62 Robles, T. F. Slatcher, R. B. Trombello, J. M. & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859 Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of marriage: Pathways to health. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 409-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00160-4 Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (2000). Have changes in gender relations affected marital quality? Social Forces, 79, 731-753. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/79.2.731 Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender & Society, 11, 747-772. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912497011006003 Schieman, S., Ruppanner, L., & Milkie, M. A. (2018). Who helps with housework? Parenting inequality and relationship quality among employed mothers and fathers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-017-9545-4 Schober, P. (2012). Paternal child care and relationship quality: A longitudinal analysis of reciprocal associations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(2), 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00955.x Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Altenburger, L. E. (2018). Paternal gatekeeping. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting (3rd Ed., pp. 167-198). Routledge. Schramm, D. G., & Harris, V. W. (2011). Marital quality and income: An examination of the influence of government assistance. Journal of Family Economic Issues, 32, 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1084-010-9212-5 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 63 Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2012). Religiosity, homogamy, and marital adjustment: An examination of newlyweds in first marriages and remarriages. Journal of Family Issues, 33(2), 246-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11420370 Schulz, R., Beach, S. R., Hebert, R. S., Martire, L. M., Monin, J. K., Tompkins, C. A., & Albert, S. M. (2009). Spousal suffering and partner’s depression and cardiovascular disease: The cardiovascular health study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(3), 246254. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e318198775b Schwartz, P. (1995). Love between equals: How peer marriage really works. The Free Press. Selcuk, E. Zayas, V., & Hazan, C. (2010). Beyond satisfaction: The role of attachment in marital functioning. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2(4), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00061.x Slatcher, R. B. (2010). Marital functioning and physical health: Implications for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(7), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00273.x Slatcher, R. B., & Schoebi, D. (2017). Protective processes underlying the links between marital quality and physical health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 148-152. htttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.09.22 Smith, T. W., Uchino, B. N., Berg, C. A., Florsheim, P., Pearce, G., Hawkins, M., N., Henry, N. J. M., Beveridge, R. M., Skinner, M. A., Ko, K. J., & Olsen-Cerny, C. (2009). Conflict and collaboration in the middle-aged and older couples: II. Cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 274-268. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016067 Smith, S. R., & Hamon, R. R. (2016). Exploring family theories (4th Ed.) Oxford. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 64 Sorokowski, P., Kowal, M., & Sorokowska, A. (2019). Religious affiliation and marital satisfaction: Commonalities among Christians, Muslims, and Atheists. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2798), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02798 South, S. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). Marital satisfaction and physical health: Evidence for an orchid effect. Psychological Sciences, 24(3), 373-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612453116 Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Loew, B. A., Allen, E. S., Carter, S., Osborne, L. J. … Markman, H. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of relationship education in the U.S. Army: 2year outcomes. Family Relations, 63, 482-495. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12083 Stanley, S. M., Carlson, R. G., Rhoades, G. K., Markman, H. J., Ritchie, L. L., & Hawkins, A. J. (2020). Best practices in relationship education focused on intimate relationships. Family Relations, 69, 497-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12419 Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Blumberg, S. L. (1997). The speaker/listener technique. The Family Journal, 5(1), 82-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480797051013 Steil, J. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Sage Publications. Stevens, D. P., Kiger, G., Mannon, S. E. (2005). Domestic labor and marital satisfaction: How much or how satisfied? Marriage and Family Review, 37, 49-67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v37n04_04 Stevens, D., Kiger, G., & Riley, P. J. (2001). Working hard and hardly working: Domestic labor and marital satisfaction among dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00514.x ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 65 Stohs, J. H. (2000). Multicultural women’s experience of household labor, conflicts, and equity. Sex Roles, 42, 339-361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007094120408 Tabatabaei, S. M., Panahandeh, S., Hasanabadi, M., Roshani, F., & Attari, A. (2012). Relation between general health and marital satisfaction in employees of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Journal of Research on Behavioral Sciences, 10(6), 491-499. Taniguchi, H., & Kaufman, G. (2014). Gender role attitudes, troubles talk, and marital satisfaction in Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(7), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513516559 Tavakol, Z., Hasrabadi, A. N., Moghadam, Z. B., Salehiniya, H., & Rezaei, E. (2017). A review of the factors associated with marital satisfaction. Galen Medical Journal, 6(3), 197-207. https://doi.org/10.22086/gmj.v0i0.641 Trail, T. E., & Karney, B. R. (2012). What’s (not) wrong with low-income marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 413-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737-2012.00977.x Tucker, M. W. & O’Grady, K. E. (2001). Effects of physical attractiveness, intelligence, age at marriage, and cohabitation on the perception of marital satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(2), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9713848 United States Census Bureau. (2017, Aug. 16). Unmarried and single Americans. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/cb17ff16.pdf Vaalar, M. L., Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (2009). Religious influences on the risk of marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(4), 917-934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00644.x ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 66 VanLaningham, J., Johnson, D. R., & Amato, P. (2001). Marital happiness, marital duration, and the u-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79(4), 13131341. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0055 Van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, A. P. (1990). A longitudinal study of equity and satisfaction in intimate relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200403 Wadsworth, T. (2015). Marriage and subjective well-being: How and why context matters. Social Indicators Research, 126(3), 1025-1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-0150930-9. Walster, E. G., Walster, W. & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Allyn and Bacon. Wanic, R. A., & Kulik, J. (2011). Toward an understanding of gender differences in the impact of marital conflict on health. Sex Roles, 65, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0119968-6 Whisman, M. A., & Baucom, D. H. (2012). Intimate relationships and psychopathology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15, 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s20567-0110107-2 Whisman, M. A., Gilmour, A. L., & Salinger, J. M. (2018). Marital satisfaction and mortality in the United States adult population. Health Psychology, 37(11), 1041-1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000677 Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). Longitudinal changes in marital relationships: The role of offspring’s pubertal development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 1005-1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00427.x ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 67 Wilcox, W. B., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2008). Living and loving “decent”: Religion and relationship quality among urban parents. Social Science Research, 37(3), 828-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.11.001 Wilcox, W. B., & Dew, J. (2013). The social and cultural predictors of generosity in marriage: Gender egalitarianism, religiosity, and familism. Journal of Family Issues, 37(1), 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13513581 Williamson, H. C. Rogge, R. D., Cobb, R. J., Johnson, M. D., Lawrence, E., & Bradbury, T. N. (2015). Risk moderates the outcome of relationship education: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 617-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038621 Wilson, K., & Prior, M. (2010). Father involvement: The importance of paternal solo care. Early Child Development and Care, 180(10), 1391-1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903172335 Zamir, O., Gewirtz, A. H., Labella, M., DeGarmo, D. S., & Snyder, J. (2018). Experiential avoidance, dyadic interaction and relationship quality in the lives of veterans and their partners. Journal of Family Issues, 39(5), 1191-1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X17698182 Zimmerman, T. S. (2003). Intimate partnerships: Foundations to the successful balance of family and work. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0192618301126 ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 68 Appendix A Sample Questions from The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (Fowers & Olson, 1993) Each question is scored using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates strongly agree, 3 indicates neither agree nor disagree, and 5 indicates strongly disagree. 1. I am happy with how we handle role responsibilities in our marriage. 3. I am happy about how we make decisions and resolve conflict. 5. I have some needs that are not being met by our relationship. 7. I am very pleased with how we express affection and relate sexually. 8. I am not satisfied with the way we each handle our responsibilities as parents. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 69 Appendix B Sample Questions from The Social Survey (GSS) and The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Each question is scored using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates strongly agree, 3 indicates neither agree nor disagree, and 5 indicates strongly disagree. 1. It is much better for everyone concerned if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the family. 2. A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work. 4. A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family. 6. There is some work that is men’s and some that is women’s, and they should not be doing each other’s. 7. A wife should not expect her husband to help around the house after he comes home from a hard day’s work. ROMANTIC DYADS LIVING EGALITARIAN LIFESTYLES 70 Appendix C Sample Questions from The Quality of Partner’s Communication Scale Each question is scored using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates strongly agree, 3 indicates neither agree nor disagree, and 5 indicates strongly disagree. 1. My partner listens to me when I need someone to talk to. 2. I find it hard to tell my partner certain things because I am not sure how [he/she] will react. 3. My partner and I discuss things before making an important decision. 4. When we are having a problem, my partner often gives me the silent treatment.