AccScience Publishing / IJPS / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/ijps.2418
Cite this article
17
Download
185
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Transitivity and couple relationship satisfaction: Sharing and visiting friends and family make the difference

Guillaume Drevon1* Jacques-Antoine Gauthier2 Gil Viry3 Vincent Kaufmann1 Florian Masse1 Alexis Gumy1
Show Less
1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Urban Sociology Lab, EPFL-ENAC-IA-LASUR, Lausanne, Switzerland
2 Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
3 School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Submitted: 12 December 2023 | Revised: 30 May 2024 | Accepted: 11 June 2024 | Published: 8 January 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

This study examined the relationship between couple relationship satisfaction and the transitivity of ties with family and friends within couples, i.e., the tendency of partners to share friends and family. In this case, transitivity was measured by using three indicators: (1) the proportion of shared friends (friendship network overlap); (2) the frequency of contact that each partner has with their own friends and family as well as those of their partner; and (3) whether social visits to friends and family are made with/without the partner (togetherness). The data were obtained from the Measurement and Observation of Social Attitudes in Switzerland survey, which included 1320 partnered individuals residing in Switzerland. The association between the transitivity of ties with family and friends within couples and couple relationship satisfaction was estimated by using structural equation modeling. According to the results, transitivity was consistently informed by the three selected indicators (i.e., friendship network overlap, frequency, and togetherness), while transitivity positively contributed to couple relationship satisfaction. Moreover, transitivity explains a couple’s relationship satisfaction more than the partner’s education level and nationality, or the duration of the couple’s relationship. By emphasizing the role and importance of joint visits by each member of the couple, this study provides unique insights into the ways in which marital satisfaction can vary.

Keywords
Personal network
Couple relationship satisfaction
Social visits
Transitivity
Structural equation modelling
Funding
This publication benefited from the support of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES – Overcoming vulnerability: Life course perspective (NCCR LIVES), which is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number: 51NF40-185901).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References

Aeby, G., Gauthier, J.A., & Widmer, E.D. (2021). Patterns of support and conflict relationships in personal networks and perceived stress. Current Sociology, 69(7):981-1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120948926

 

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3):411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

 

Ashida, S., Sewell, D.K., Schafer, E.J., Schroer, A., & Friberg, J. (2019). Social network members who engage in activities with older adults: Do they bring more social benefits than other members? Ageing and Society, 39(5):1050-1069. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X17001490

 

Bidart, C., Degenne, A., & Grossetti, M. (2018). Personal networks typologies: A structural approach. Social Networks, 54:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.11.003

 

Bó, B.B. (2020). Beyond the time bind: Gender inequality and the tempo of life in 87 countries. Time and Society, 29(3):892-915. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X20908084

 

Cai, L., Wang, S., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Vacation travel, marital satisfaction, and subjective wellbeing: A Chinese perspective. Journal of China Tourism Research, 16(1):118-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2019.1575304

 

Chi, P., Epstein, N.B., Fang, X., Lam, D.O.B., & Li, X. (2013). Similarity of relationship standards, couple communication patterns, and couple relationship satisfaction among Chinese couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5):806-816. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034113

 

Cohn-Schwartz, E., Roth, A.R., & Widmer, E.D. (2021). Joint social contact and network overlap of spouses facing later adulthood household transitions in Switzerland. Advances in Life Course Research, 48:100395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100395

 

Collins, N.L., & Feeney, B.C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6):1053-1073. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1053

 

Cornwell, B. (2012). Spousal network overlap as a basis for spousal support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74(2):229-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00959.x®

 

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2):281-317. https://doi.org/10.1086/231209

 

Feld, S.L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5):1015-1035. https://doi.org/10.1086/227352

 

Finucane, M.O., & Horvath, C.W. (2000). Lazy leisure: A qualitative investigation of the relational uses of television in marriage. Communication Quarterly, 48(3):311-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385599

 

Fiori, K.L., Rauer, A.J., Birditt, K.S., Brown, E., Jager, J., & Orbuch, T.L. (2017). Social network typologies of black and white married couples in midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(2):571-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12330

 

Flood, S.M., & Genadek, K.R. (2016). Time for each other: Work and family constraints among couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 78(1):142-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12255

 

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6):1360-1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

 

Greeff, A.P. (2000). Characteristics of families that function well. Journal of Family Issues, 21(8):948-962. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251300021008001

 

Harmon, J. (2016). Couples and shared leisure experiences. World Leisure Journal, 58(4):245-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2016.1225883

 

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. United States: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, p.9, 326. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000

 

Hickman-Evans, C., Higgins, J.P., Aller, T.B., Chavez, J., & Piercy, K.W. (2018). Newlywed couple leisure: Couple identity formation through leisure time. Marriage and Family Review, 54(2):105-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2017.1297756

 

Hogerbrugge, M.J.A., Komter, A.E., & Scheepers, P. (2013). Dissolving long-term romantic relationships: Assessing the role of the social context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3):320-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512462167

 

Hoyle, R.H. (ed). (2014). Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. New York City: The Guilford Press.

 

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(1):105-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12077

 

Janta, H., Cohen, S.A., & Williams, A.M. (2015). Rethinking visiting friends and relatives mobilities. Population, Space and Place, 21(7):585-598. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1914

 

Johnson, H.A., Zabriskie, R.B., & Hill, B. (2006). The contribution of couple leisure involvement, leisure time, and leisure satisfaction to marital satisfaction. Marriage and Family Review, 40(1):69-91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v40n01_05

 

Kalmijn, M. (2003). Shared friendship networks and the life course: An analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples. Social Networks, 25(3):231-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(03)00010-8

 

Kaufmann, V., & Widmer, E.D. (2006). Motility and family dynamics: Current issues and research agendas. Journal of Family Research, 18(1):111-129. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-332

 

Kesselring, S. (2005). New mobilities management. Mobility pioneers between first and second modernity. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 17(2):129-143.

 

Li, T., & Fung, H.H. (2011). The dynamic goal theory of marital satisfaction. Review of General Psychology, 15(3):246-254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024694

 

Litwin, H. (2005). Correlates of successful aging: Are they universal? International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 61(4):313-333. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGV-AQPU-PT28-B8D7

 

Ogolsky, B.G., Surra, C.A., & Monk, J.K. (2016). Pathways of commitment to wed: The development and dissolution of romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2):293-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12260

 

Olson, D.H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2):144-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00144

 

Olson, D.H., Lavee, Y., & McCubbin, H. I. (1988). Types of families and family response to stress across the family life cycle. In: Social Stress and Family Development. New York City: Guilford Press, p.16-43.

 

Orthner, D.K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over the marital career. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37(1):91-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/351033

 

Rajput, N.R. (2017). Marital adjustment and happiness. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.25215/0501.095

 

Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M.R. (1993). Shared activities and couple relationship satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2):243-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000205

 

Rhoden, J.L. (2003). Marital cohesion, flexibility, and communication in the marriages of nontraditional and traditional women. Family Journal, 11(3):248-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480703251988

 

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2):1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

 

Ruppanner, L., Perales, F., & Baxter, J. (2019). Harried and unhealthy? Parenthood, time pressure, and mental health. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(2):308-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12531

 

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research. United States: Sage Publications, Inc., p.399-419.

 

Sorokowski, P., Randall, A.K., Groyecka, A., Frackowiak, T., Cantarero, K., Hilpert, P., et al. (2017). Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33 countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 8:1199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01199

 

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1):15-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

 

Spanier, G.B., & Lewis, R.A. (1980). Marital quality: A review of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(4):825-839. https://doi.org/10.2307/351827

 

Stein, E. (2020). Adultery, infidelity, and consensual non-monogamy. SSRN Electronic Journal, 55:147. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425567

 

Tavakol, Z., Behboodi Moghadam, Z., Nikbakht Nasrabadi, A., Salehiniya, H., & Rezaei, E. (2017). A review of the factors associated with marital satisfaction. Galen Medical Journal, 6(3):3. https://doi.org/10.31661/gmj.v6i3.641

 

Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011). Trust and reciprocity: A theoretical distinction of the sources of social capital. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(2):181-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431011403461

 

Turner, L.H., & West, R. (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Family Communication. United States: SAGE Publications.

 

Urry, J. (2012). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century. England, UK: Routledge.

 

Vacchiano, M., Hollstein, B., Settersten, R.A., & Spini, D. (2024). Networked lives: Probing the influence of social networks on the life course. Advances in Life Course Research, 59:100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2024.100590

 

Ward, P.J., Barney, K.W., Lundberg, N.R., & Zabriskie, R.B. (2014). A critical examination of couple leisure and the application of the core and balance model. Journal of Leisure Research, 46(5):593-611. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2014.11950344

 

Widmer, E., Favez, N., Aeby, G., De Carlo, I., & Doan, M.T. (2012). Capital Social et Coparentage dans les Familles Recomposées et de Première Union [Social capital and co-parenting in Stepfamilies and First Unions]. Available from: https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:19277 [Last accessed on 2025 Jan 06].

 

Widmer, E.D. (2016). Family Configurations: A Structural Approach to Family Diversity. England, UK: Routledge.

 

Widmer, É.D., Kellerhals, J., & Lévy, R. (2004). What pluralization of family relations? Conflicts, conjugal interaction styles, and social milieu. Revue Française de Sociologie, 45(1):37-67. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.451.0037

 

Zaheri, F., Dolatian, M., Shariati, M., Simbar, M., Ebadi, A., & Azghadi, S.B.H. (2016). Effective factors in couple relationship satisfaction in perspective of Iranian women and men: A systematic review. Electronic Physician, 8(12):3369-3377. https://doi.org/10.19082/3369

Share
Back to top
International Journal of Population Studies, Electronic ISSN: 2424-8606 Print ISSN: 2424-8150, Published by AccScience Publishing