The effects of collaborative and non-aggressive communication on the relationship between the ...

218 Pages·2014·3.1 MB·English

by  Knutson, Kristine M.

The effects of collaborative and non-aggressive communication on the relationship between the
division of labor(s) and marital quality for dual-earner couples

BY

©2014

Kristine Marie Knutson

Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty
of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.

________________________________
Chairperson: Dr. Alesia Woszidlo

________________________________
Dr. Jeff Hall

________________________________
Dr. Adrianne Kunkel

________________________________
Dr. Tracy Russo

________________________________
Dr. Wei Wu

Date Defended: April 18, 2014
The Dissertation Committee for Kristine Marie Knutson
certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

The effects of collaborative and non-aggressive communication on the relationship between the
division of labor(s) and marital quality for dual-earner couples

________________________________
Chairperson: Dr. Alesia Woszidlo

Date approved: April 21, 2014

ii
ABSTRACT

Guided by equity theory and the distributive justice perspective, this study examined the
explanatory role of positive communication behaviors (i.e., collaborative communication and
non-aggressive communication) when looking at perceptions of fairness in the divisions of
family labors (i.e., household, childcare, and wage labor) and marital quality. These relationships
were tested intrapersonally and interpersonally as dyadic data from 120 dual-earner married
couples with young children were analyzed. Data were collected using a planned missing data
design. The planned missing values were imputed using Multiple Imputation (MI).
Direct effects associated with collaborative communication indicated that greater
perceived fairness in the divisions of household and childcare labor were associated with greater
own use of collaborative communication by husbands and wives. Greater perceived fairness in
the division of wage labor was associated with greater own use of collaborative communication
for wives, but not for husbands. Additionally, greater use of collaborative communication was
associated with greater own and partner assessments of marital quality for husbands and wives.
Direct effects associated with non-aggressive communication indicated greater husband
perceptions of fairness in the division of household labor were associated with greater husband
use of non-aggressive communication, and greater husband and wife perceptions of fairness in
the division of wage labor were found to predict greater own use of non-aggressive
communication. In most situations, greater use of non-aggressive communication by both
husbands and wives lead to greater own and spouse assessments of marital quality. The
exceptions concern household and childcare labor wherein husbands’ use of non-aggressive
communication did not have an effect on wives’ assessment of marital quality.
iii
Indirect effects indicated that collaborative communication is a mechanism by which
husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of fairness in the divisions of household and childcare labor
influenced their own and their partners’ assessments of marital quality. Concerning fairness in
the division of wage labor, only wives’ perceptions of fairness were indirectly linked to wives’
marital quality through their own use of collaborative communication. Results concerning non-
aggressive communication indicated that only in the context of wage labor were husbands’ and
wives’ perceptions of fairness related to their assessments of marital quality through non-
aggressive communication.
This study highlighted the importance of studying communication as an explanatory
variable. This research can be utilized by scholars, counselors, and dual-earner married couples
to better understand how fairly dividing family labors and using positive communication
behaviors can enable more satisfying marriages.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Alesia Woszidlo. Words cannot
express how fortunate I am to have had the opportunity to work with you over the past six years.
Whether it was working on course projects, independent studies, or my dissertation, you have
been a tireless source of support and encouragement. For that, I am eternally grateful. You have
modeled excellence in research and teaching, and I hope that someday I will have as positive of
an effect on my students’ lives as you have had on mine. I am so lucky to call you a mentor and
friend. Thanks for everything!
Additionally, I want to thank all the individuals who served on my dissertation
committee. Dr. Tracy Russo, I want you to know the positive impact (BOOM!) you have had on
my graduate career. From day one, you have been there to offer guidance and counsel. Thank
you so very much! You once said that you should only use the word “impact” if the force of the
event were so great that it left a crater in the earth. The knowledge, wisdom, support, and
encouragement you have given me over the years would more than fill any crater, so “impact”
seemed most appropriate here.
Dr. Adrianne Kunkel, thank you for serving on my committees, pushing me to do great
work in your classes, and inviting me to talk to your classes about fathering! Dr. Jeff Hall, thank
you for working with me on my MA thesis, showing me how to be an exceptional undergraduate
methods teacher, and agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee so close to my defense
date. Dr. Wei Wu, thank you for all the quick replies to emails with methods questions. It was
such a comfort to know that there was someone there who could help me out of any problem!
Finally, to Dr. Suzy D’Enbeau and Dr. Todd Little, thanks for being excellent teachers, and for
v
serving on my committee during the formative stages of this research. You both positively
influenced the direction of this work, and for that I thank you!
I would also like to thank my family for everything they have given me. To my husband
Pete Knutson, thank you for helping me think through ideas, making me step away from work
when I needed breaks, and just being there to pick up the slack while I worked on this project. I
love you so much and couldn’t have done this without you. To my parents, thanks for always
being there. I am especially grateful for your help in recruiting participants for this study. To
Steve, Christa, Matt, Jess, Becky, and Jeremiah, thanks so much for being wonderful siblings and
helping out whenever I asked! To Jonas, Elliot, and Brady, thanks for making me feel so special
whenever I come around or talk to you on the phone. I love you all!
Finally, I want to thank the following friends who helped me during this process: Mary
Beth Asbury, Heather Attig, Erin Blocher, Angie Crawford, Jess Gibbs, Suzanne Grachek,
Chelsea Graham, Jenna Haugen, Rose Helens-Hart, Abbie Hodgson, Jaclyn Howell, Terry
Jorgensen, Amber Messersmith, Todd Thompson, J. D. Warnock, Sara Warnock, and Elsa
Warnock. Thank you all for all that you do!

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER I .................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................. 10
Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 10
Family, Labor, and the Dual-Earner Couple ......................................................................... 10
Family ............................................................................................................................... 11
Labor ................................................................................................................................. 12
Household labor ............................................................................................................ 12
Caring Labor ................................................................................................................. 13
Wage labor .................................................................................................................... 13
The dual-earner couple ..................................................................................................... 13
Division of Family Labor(s) ................................................................................................. 16
Division of public sphere labor ......................................................................................... 18
Division of private sphere labor ........................................................................................ 20
Division of household labor .......................................................................................... 21
Division of childcare labor ............................................................................................ 21
vii
Equity Theory ....................................................................................................................... 24
Distributive justice ............................................................................................................ 24
Procedural justice .............................................................................................................. 25
Fairness ............................................................................................................................. 25
Communication and Perceptions of Fairness ........................................................................ 26
Collaborative communication ........................................................................................... 26
Non-Aggressive communication ...................................................................................... 29
The Dyadic Nature of Marital Bonds.................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................................... 40
Method ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Participant Inclusion Criteria ................................................................................................ 40
Participant Recruitment Procedures ...................................................................................... 41
Participant Demographic Information .................................................................................. 43
Husband demographics ..................................................................................................... 44
Wife demographics ........................................................................................................... 46
Measures ............................................................................................................................... 48
Division of labor(s) ........................................................................................................... 48
Division of household labor .......................................................................................... 49
Division of childcare labor ............................................................................................ 51
Collaborative communication ........................................................................................... 52
viii
Non-aggressive communication........................................................................................ 52
Marital quality ................................................................................................................... 53
Analytic Strategy .................................................................................................................. 54
Planned missing data design. ............................................................................................ 54
Types of missingness. ................................................................................................... 54
Methods for dealing with missing data. ........................................................................ 55
Defining planned missing data designs......................................................................... 58
Implementing planned missingness in this study.......................................................... 59
Preparing data for analyses. .......................................................................................... 62
Multiple imputation. ......................................................................................................... 64
Methods of analyses utilized ............................................................................................. 66
Simple mediation tests of indirect effects. .................................................................... 67
Actor-Partner Interdependence Model for Mediation ................................................... 70
CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................................................... 73
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 73
Hypothesis 1: Collaborative Communication as an Intrapersonal Mediator of Perceptions of
Fairness in the Division of Family Labor(s) and Marital Quality ........................................ 73
Hypothesis 2: Non-Aggressive Communication as an Intrapersonal Mediator of Perceptions
of Fairness in the Division of Family Labor(s) and Marital Quality .................................... 81
ix
Hypothesis 3: Collaborative Communication as an Interpersonal Mediator of Perceptions of
Fairness in the Division of Family Labor(s) and Marital Quality ........................................ 85
Hypothesis 4: Non-Aggressive Communication as an Interpersonal Mediator of Perceptions
of Fairness in the Division of Family Labor(s) and Marital Quality .................................... 94
CHAPTER V .............................................................................................................................. 101
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 101
Scholarly Contributions ...................................................................................................... 101
General Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 104
Collaborative communication ......................................................................................... 104
Perceptions of fairness and their effects on collaborative communication ................. 105
Collaborative communication and its effect on marital quality .................................. 111
Collaborative communication and its indirect effects ................................................ 112
Non-aggressive communication...................................................................................... 117
Perceptions of fairness and their effects on non-aggressive communication ................. 118
Non-aggressive communication and its effects on marital quality ............................. 124
Non-aggressive communication and its indirect effects ............................................. 127
Perceptions of fairness in the division of household, childcare, and wage labor ........... 128
Implications of the Current Research ................................................................................. 130
Theoretical implications.................................................................................................. 130
Practical implications ...................................................................................................... 132
x