Abstract
This article focuses on a better understanding of the influence of partnership and job mobility on the quality of partnerships. Different types of job-related mobility (short-time commuter, long-time commuter, non-mobiles) and three types for partnership-related mobility (overnighters, short-distance relationships, and long-distance relationships) are included for analyzing the impacts on partnership quality, using data from the first wave of the German Family Panel. Among men faced with more demanding job-related mobility we found a positive effect on partnership quality and a negative of living in a long distance relationship. Among women, both effects are negative, but not significant. Furthermore, we analyzed variables that have been emphasized in previous research as important mediating factors (such as sexual satisfaction, conflicts, relatedness, autonomy, and commitment). Looking at these mediating variables the results show that among individuals with partnership-related mobility, sexual satisfaction, conflicts, relatedness, and autonomy have positive indirect effects for men and women on partnership quality. With regard to job-related mobility, we find a positive indirect effect of reduced conflicts for long-distance commuting men, and a positive indirect effect among long-time commuting women with regard to relatedness and autonomy. The results support the interpretation that living apart together matters more than living together apart.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We used the term short-time or long-time commuters instead of short-distance or long-distance, because time is the main dimension. But the category its operationalization is similar to the concept from Schneider and Meil 2008.
- 2.
Three items measuring traditional values were selected on the basis of a factor analysis: “You should get married if you permanently live with your partner,” “Marriage is a lifelong union which should not be broken,” and “Couples should marry at the latest after a child is born.”
- 3.
The respondents have to distribute 15 tokens to assess the current relevance of different domains of the life course (education and career interests, leisure time and hobbies, friendships, and partnership and children).
References
Brüderl, J., Castiglioni, L., Krieger, U., Ludwig, V., Pforr, K., & Schumann, N. (2010). pairfam Data Manual, Wave 1. Mannheim: Technical Report Mannheim Centre for European Social Research.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 227–268.
Eckey, H. F., Kosfeld, R., & Türck, M. (2007). Pendelbereitschaft von Arbeitnehmern in Deutschland. Raumordnung und Raumforschung, 65, 5–14.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 15–134.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024.
Giddens, A. (1993). Wandel der Intimität. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
Halford, W. K., Gravestock, F. M., Lowe, R., & Scheldt, S. (1992). Toward a behavioral ecology of stressful marital interaction. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 199–227.
Hill, P. B., & Kopp, J. (2006). Familiensoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS.
Huinink, J. (1999). Die Entscheidung zur nichtehelichen Lebensgemeinschaft als Lebensform. In T. Klein & W. Lauterbach (Eds.), Nichteheliche Lebensgemeinschaften – Analyse zum Wandel partnerschaftlicher Lebensformen (pp. 113–138). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Huinink, J., Brüderl, J., Nauck, B., Walper, S., Castiglioni, L., & Feldhaus, M. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Framework and design of pairfam. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 11, 77–102.
Kersting, J., & Grau, I. (2003). Paarkonflikt und Trennung. In I. Grau & H.-W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie der Partnerschaft (pp. 426–457). Heidelberg: Springer.
Kley, S. (2012). Gefährdet Pendelmobilität die Stabilität von Paarbeziehungen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 41, 356–374.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practise of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kopp, J., Lois, D., Kunz, C., & Arránz Becker, O. (2010). “Verliebt, verlobt, verheiratet.” Institutionalisierungsprozesse in Partnerschaften. Ergebnisse eines empirischen Forschungsprozesses. Wiesbaden: VS.
Koslowsky, M., Kulger, A. N., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting stress: Causes, effects, and methods of coping. New York: Plenum.
Lenz, K., & Nestmann, F. (2009). Handbuch persönliche Beziehungen. Wiesbaden: VS.
Limmer, R. (2005). Berufsmobilität und Familie in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 17, 8–26.
Limmer, R., & Schneider, N. F. (2008). Studying job-related spatial mobility in Europe. In N. F. Schneider & G. Meil (Eds.), Mobile living across Europe, volume I. Relevance and diversity of job-related spatial mobility in six European countries (pp. 13–45). Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.
Lück, D., & Schneider, N. F. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on mobility and family: Increasing job mobility – Changing family lives. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 22, 135–148.
Meil, G. (2008). Summary – Job mobility in Europe: Greater differences among social groups than among countries. In N. F. Schneider & G. Meil (Eds.), Mobile living across Europe, volume I. Relevance and diversity of job-related spatial mobility in six European countries (pp. 305–318). Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.
Meil, G. (2010a). Geographic job mobility and parenthood decisions. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 22, 171–196.
Meil, G. (2010b). Job mobility and family life. In N. F. Schneider & B. Collet (Eds.), Mobile living across Europe, volume II. Causes and consequences of job-related spatial mobility in cross-national comparison (pp. 215–237). Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Muthén, B. (2011). Applications of causally defined direct and indirect effects in mediation analysis using SEM in MPLUS (under review).
Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2003). Relationships styles of self-focused autonomy, other focused connectedness, and mutuality among adult couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 81–99.
Noyon, A., & Kock, T. (2006). Living apart together: Ein Vergleich getrennt wohnender Paare mit klassischen Partnerschaften. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 18, 27–45.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Reuschke, D. (2010). Multilokales Wohnen. Wiesbaden: VS.
Rhoades, G. K., Scott, M. S., & Markman, H. J. (2009). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation. Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233–258.
Rüger, H., Feldhaus, M., Becker, K., & Schlegel, M. (2011). Zirkuläre berufsbezogene Mobilität in Deutschland: Vergleichende Analysen mit zwei repräsentativen Surveys zu Formen; Verbreitung und Relevanz im Kontext der Partnerschafts- und Familienentwicklung. Comparative Population Studies – Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, 36(1), 193–220.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model. An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relationship maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego: Academic.
Schneewind, K. A., & Kruse, J. (2002). Die Paarklimaskalen (PKS). Bern: Huber.
Schneider, N. F. (2005). Einführung: Mobilität und Familie. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 17, 90–95.
Schneider, N. F. (2009). Distanzbeziehungen. In K. Lenz & F. Nestmann (Eds.), Handbuch persönliche Beziehungen (pp. 677–694). Wiesbaden: VS.
Schneider, N. F., & Collet, B. (2010). Mobile living across Europe, volume II. Causes and consequences of job-related spatial mobility in cross-national comparison. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Schneider, N. F., & Meil, G. (2008). Mobile living across Europe, volume I. Relevance and diversity of job-related spatial mobility in six European countries. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.
Schneider, N. F., Limmer, R., & Ruckdeschel, K. (2002). Mobil, flexibel, gebunden. Frankfurt/M: Campus.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2007). Commuting and life satisfaction in Germany. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 11, 179–189.
Sydow, K. V. (1998). Sexualität und/oder Bindung: Ein Forschungsüberblick zu sexuellen Entwicklungen in langfristigen Partnerschaften. Familiendynamik, 23, 377–404.
Viry, G., Widmer, E. D., & Kaufmann, V. (2010). Does it matter for us that my partner or I commute? Spatial mobility for job reasons and the quality of conjugal relationships in France, Germany, and Switzerland. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 22, 149–169.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feldhaus, M., Schlegel, M. (2015). Living Apart Together and Living Together Apart: Impacts of Partnership-Related and Job-Related Circular Mobility on Partnership Quality. In: Aybek, C., Huinink, J., Muttarak, R. (eds) Spatial Mobility, Migration, and Living Arrangements. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10021-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10021-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10020-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10021-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)