The Psychological Toll of Emotion Work in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Marital Dyads.
couples
emotions
gender
marital relations
same-sex marriage
well-being
Journal
Journal of marriage and the family
ISSN: 0022-2445
Titre abrégé: J Marriage Fam
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375376
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
entrez:
22
8
2022
pubmed:
1
8
2020
medline:
1
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study considers how the provision of daily emotion work may affect the psychological well-being of the emotion worker, and how this linkage may vary for men and women in same- and different-sex marriages. Emotion work-work intended to bolster a spouse's well-being by reading and managing the spouse's emotional needs-is common within marital relationships and often gendered, with women more aware of and concerned with emotion work than men. Yet, the psychological cost of performing emotion work is largely unexplored. This study relies on 10 days of daily experiences data from spouses in same- and different-sex marriages (n = 756 individuals). Mixed effects multilevel regression modeling is used to examine how the provision of emotion work is associated with the emotion workers' psychological well-being. Providing emotion work is inversely associated with emotion workers' psychological well-being, especially when provided for a spouse with elevated depressive symptoms. These estimated effects are generally similar for men and women but greater for those married to a man than for those married to a woman, whether in a same- or different-sex marriage. Emotion work appears to adversely affect the worker's own psychological well-being, especially when a spouse has elevated depressive symptoms and when one's spouse is a man. These results point to the importance of dyadic approaches and consideration of gendered relationship dynamics of same- as well as different-sex couples in studies of emotion work and other marital processes.
Sections du résumé
Objective
UNASSIGNED
This study considers how the provision of daily emotion work may affect the psychological well-being of the emotion worker, and how this linkage may vary for men and women in same- and different-sex marriages.
Background
UNASSIGNED
Emotion work-work intended to bolster a spouse's well-being by reading and managing the spouse's emotional needs-is common within marital relationships and often gendered, with women more aware of and concerned with emotion work than men. Yet, the psychological cost of performing emotion work is largely unexplored.
Method
UNASSIGNED
This study relies on 10 days of daily experiences data from spouses in same- and different-sex marriages (n = 756 individuals). Mixed effects multilevel regression modeling is used to examine how the provision of emotion work is associated with the emotion workers' psychological well-being.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Providing emotion work is inversely associated with emotion workers' psychological well-being, especially when provided for a spouse with elevated depressive symptoms. These estimated effects are generally similar for men and women but greater for those married to a man than for those married to a woman, whether in a same- or different-sex marriage.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Emotion work appears to adversely affect the worker's own psychological well-being, especially when a spouse has elevated depressive symptoms and when one's spouse is a man. These results point to the importance of dyadic approaches and consideration of gendered relationship dynamics of same- as well as different-sex couples in studies of emotion work and other marital processes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35992218
doi: 10.1111/jomf.12686
pmc: PMC9387901
mid: NIHMS1783135
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1141-1158Subventions
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : F32 AA025814
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : P2C HD042849
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R21 AG044585
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : T32 HD007081
Pays : United States
Références
J Aging Stud. 2015 Jan;32:12-22
pubmed: 25661852
Aging Ment Health. 2009 Jan;13(1):64-72
pubmed: 19197691
J Health Soc Behav. 2019 Mar;60(1):18-35
pubmed: 30461313
Fam Process. 2011 Sep;50(3):353-76
pubmed: 21884075
Mol Psychiatry. 2011 Mar;16(3):273-81
pubmed: 20231839
Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(2):264-76
pubmed: 26209212
Sociol Health Illn. 2012 Mar;34(3):345-61
pubmed: 21707661
Arch Intern Med. 1999 Aug 9-23;159(15):1701-4
pubmed: 10448771
J Marriage Fam. 2015 Apr 1;77(2):542-556
pubmed: 25814771
Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):102-16
pubmed: 18194009
Sex Roles. 2015 Aug;73(3-4):157-173
pubmed: 26508808
Am J Prev Med. 1994 Mar-Apr;10(2):77-84
pubmed: 8037935
Soc Ment Health. 2013 Nov 1;3(3):151-169
pubmed: 25914855
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(11):1661-6
pubmed: 22497844
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Mar;34(3):321-36
pubmed: 18272802
Psychol Bull. 2014 Jan;140(1):140-187
pubmed: 23527470
Clin Psychol Rev. 2008 Feb;28(2):179-98
pubmed: 17573169
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70
pubmed: 3397865
J Marriage Fam. 2010 Feb;72(1):135-147
pubmed: 21603113
J Marriage Fam. 2008 May;70(2):391-406
pubmed: 21833150
Soc Ment Health. 2020 Mar;10(1):80-96
pubmed: 33224557
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Sep;75(3):670-80
pubmed: 9781406
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Nov;75(5):1333-49
pubmed: 9866191
J Fam Theory Rev. 2020 Jun;12(2):220-237
pubmed: 33312231