Lower emotional stability predicted higher probability of moving due to neighborhood, housing, & family, while higher agreeableness was associated with lower probability due to neighborhood & education

Personality traits and reasons for residential mobility: Longitudinal data from United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia. Markus Jokela. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 180, October 2021, 110978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110978

Abstract: Personality traits have been associated with differences in residential mobility, but details are lacking on the types of residential moves associated with personality differences. The present study pooled data from four prospective cohort studies from the United Kingdom (UK Household Longitudinal Survey, and British Household Panel Survey), Germany (Socioeconomic Panel Study), and Australia (Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia) to assess whether personality traits of the Five Factor Model are differently related to residential moves motivated by different reasons to move: employment, education, family, housing, and neighborhood (total n = 86,073). Openness to experience was associated with all moves but particularly with moves due to employment and education. Extraversion was associated with higher overall mobility, except for moves motivated by employment and education. Lower emotional stability predicted higher probability of moving due to neighborhood, housing, and family, while higher agreeableness was associated with lower probability of moving due to neighborhood and education. Adjusting for education, household income, marital status, employment status, number of children in the household, and housing tenure did not substantially change the associations. These results suggest that different personality traits may motivate different types of residential moves.

Keywords: PersonalityMigrationMobilityDemographyGeographical psychology

4. Discussion

The current results from four prospective cohort studies suggest that personality differences are related to people's motivations to move. Openness to experience was associated with higher overall mobility but especially with mobility due to education and employment. Extraversion was also related to higher overall mobility, except moves driven by employment or education. Higher emotional stability and higher agreeableness were associated with lower residential mobility: emotional stability due to neighborhood, housing, and family, and agreeableness due to neighborhood and education. Conscientiousness was not related to residential mobility.

In Western developed countries, between 10% and 25% of households change residence every two years (Sánchez & Andrews, 2011). Economic and demographic perspectives emphasize the practical determinants of residential mobility: people move after jobs, they move to larger or smaller homes as family size changes, or they try to move away from neighborhoods they dislike (Findlay et al., 2015; Kley, 2011). The present results demonstrate that personality is not competing with sociodemographic factors as an explanation for residential mobility. Instead, people's personality traits determine, in part, how strongly their residential mobility is determined by different mobility motivations. The role of personality is thus not restricted to only predicting moves that are unrelated to sociodemographic drivers of mobility (e.g., employment or housing) but can be observed across multiple reasons for moving.

Openness to experience and extraversion are the two personality traits that have been most consistently associated with residential mobility in previous studies (Campbell, 2019; Ciani & Capiluppi, 2011; Jokela, 2009, Jokela, 2020), and the current findings provide further support for their role in residential mobility. Openness to experience was a particularly strong predictor of moves related to employment and education. Openness to experience was related to educational achievement, and sociodemographic covariates accounted for about half of its associations with mobility related to employment and education. Beyond the socioeconomic correlates, individuals with high openness to experience may be more curious and willing to explore new places (Silvia & Christensen, 2020), which increases the likelihood of moving after opportunities of higher education and employment, and moving for other reasons as well. Extraversion was also related to higher overall mobility rates. Individuals with high extraversion are energetic, active, assertive, and sensitive to rewarding experiences (Smillie, 2013). These characteristics may increase the probability of planning to move and taking action to move, and also to perceive the move to a new location as an opportunity rather than a risk.

Lower emotional stability was associated with higher mobility rates, mainly due to neighborhood, housing, and family. Individuals with low emotional stability are sensitive to negative emotions and distress (Jeronimus et al., 2016). It is therefore plausible that any dissatisfaction with the neighborhood or housing conditions is experienced more strongly by individuals with low compared to high emotional stability (Jokela, 2009), and the heightened dissatisfaction with neighborhoods or housing conditions may explain the association between low emotional stability and mobility. Higher agreeableness, in turn, was related to lower mobility due to neighborhood and education. This may be related to highly agreeable people's stronger commitment and integration with their local communities (Lounsbury et al., 2003), which could help to explain why they are less eager to move.

Conscientiousness was not related to residential mobility. Studies from the United States (Jokela, 2009) and Australia (with the same HILDA data as used here; Campbell, 2019) have also reported no significant associations with conscientiousness. However, conscientiousness may influence more specific forms of residential mobility. In HILDA, higher conscientiousness predicted higher probability of rural-to-urban migration but was not associated with urban-to-rural migration (Jokela, 2020), suggesting that conscientiousness may be associated with selective residential mobility to specific locations. And in a previous study with the BHPS, higher conscientiousness predicted higher migration probability among those participants who intended or desired to move but lower migration probability among those who did not intend or desire to move (Jokela, 2014). This suggests that the influence of conscientiousness on residential mobility depends on the person's mobility intentions, so that highly conscientious individuals are more likely to stick to their plans of either moving or not moving. A previous analysis with HILDA (Campbell, 2019) also observed that conscientiousness was related to how migration intentions aligned with migration outcomes among those who migrated. The current study did not assess mobility intentions, so such associations could not be assessed here.

The findings indicate that sociodemographic and personality explanations for residential mobility are not competing or mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that moves related to employment and education were predicted only by one personality trait (openness to experience) whereas neighborhood-related moves were predicted by four personality traits (all traits except conscientiousness). Housing-related moves were also predicted by only one personality trait (emotional stability) and family-related moves by two traits (extraversion and emotional stability). Together these patterns suggest that personality may have the broadest influence on residential mobility via neighborhood preferences. Except for the two strongest associations of openness to experience, the magnitudes of the personality associations were mostly modest, so the role of personality in determining residential mobility patterns should not be overemphasized. However, even modest associations may accumulate into important population-level differences over 20–30 years (Jokela, 2020).

The study has some limitations that could be addressed in future studies. First, the study focused on reason-specific moves but did not consider moving distances that can be related to reasons to move (Thomas, 2019). Some of the personality associations with reason-specific moves may thus overlap with willingness to move over longer distances. Second, the current analysis considered only personality of individuals but did not consider possible family dynamics in which the personality associations depend on the personality traits, or other characteristics, of the spouse, because the decision to move concerns the whole family. Third, the analysis did not consider other contextualized associations that may arise over the life course (Findlay et al., 2015; Kley, 2011). For example, some personality traits may become particularly important for work-related mobility for individuals who become unemployed, or for family-related and housing-related mobility when individuals become parents. Fourth, it must be emphasized that the present results are based on meta-analytic results across three countries. The study-specific associations suggested considerable similarities between countries (see supplementary material), but it is also possible that some of the associations between personality and residential mobility vary by country or region, because different locations are characterized by different residential mobility patterns. Fifth, it would also be informative to study people's self-reported reasons for staying in their current neighborhood instead of moving away.

In sum, the present findings provide contextualized data on how different personality traits predict residential mobility due to different reasons to move. Neighborhood characteristics and sociodemographic factors associated with different life stages are important drivers of residential mobility. However, personality does not need to be considered as competing with sociodemographic explanations of residential mobility. Rather, personality traits appear to influence the relative weight of different motivating factors in guiding people's mobility decisions.

As the level of family politicization & consistency increases, the influence of genes decreases; we take this to imply that family socialization can compensate for (genetic) individual differences & foster increased political engagement

Rasmussen, Stig H. R., Aaron Weinschenk, Chris Dawes, Jacob v. Hjelmborg, and Robert Klemmensen. 2021. “Parental Transmission and the Importance of the (non-causal) Effects of Education on Political Engagement: Missing the Forest for the Trees.” PsyArXiv. June 7. doi:10.31234/osf.io/agn8t

Abstract: By most accounts, an important prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy is engaged citizens. A very prominent explanation of variation in political engagement suggests that parental transmission through socialization accounts for individual-level differences in political engagement. In this paper, we show that classic formulations of parental transmission theory can be supplemented by findings from the bio-politics literature, allowing us to disentangle when heritable factors are important and when socialization factors are important predictors of political engagement. The paper demonstrates that the effect of education on various measures of political engagement is confounded by both genes and parental socialization; no previous study has documented the importance of both of these confounders. We then go on to show that as the level of family politicization and consistency increases, the influence of genes decreases. We take this to imply that family socialization can compensate for (genetic) individual differences and foster increased political engagement. By only focusing on the “causal” effect of education, we are missing the forest for the trees.

Robust associations between fear of missing out and both social networking sites use & Problematic SNS use

Fear of missing out and social networking sites use and abuse: A meta-analysis. Giulia Fioravanti et al. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 122, September 2021, 106839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106839

Highlights

• A meta-analysis on the relationship between FoMO levels and SNS use and problematic SNS use (PSNSU) was conducted.

• The effect sizes indicate robust associations between FoMO and both SNS use and PSNUS.

• Age, sex, and geographic area did not moderate the associations.

• FoMO should be employed as a relevant dimension in the evaluation and treatment of PSNUS.

Abstract: A growing body of research has examined the potential effects of the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) on Social Networking Site (SNS) use and Problematic SNS use (PSNSU). The aim of the current meta-analysis is to summarize findings on the relationship between FoMO levels and (i) SNS use and (ii) PSNSU. Furthermore, we meta-analyzed results on the associations between FoMO and some individual characteristics. The sample included 33 independent samples with a total of 21,473 participants. The results of the random-effects meta-analysis show a positive correlation between FoMO and SNS use and between FoMO and PSNSU, with effect sizes indicating robust associations. Age, sex, and geographic area of the samples did not moderate the associations. FoMO was positively correlated with depression, anxiety, and neuroticism and negatively correlated with consciousness. These results give robustness to the construct validity of FoMO itself, as this concept was introduced to explain why some people might be especially attracted to social media. Moreover, concerns that others might be having rewarding experiences that one is absent from seem to be a trigger for a compulsive use of social platforms, driven by the need to get in touch with others, or as tool to develop social competence.

Keywords: 

Fear of missing outMeta-analysisProblematic social networking sites useSocial media addictionSocial networking site use

Facial shape provides a valid cue to sociosexuality in men but not women

Facial shape provides a valid cue to sociosexuality in men but not women. Joseph C. AntaraIan, D. Stephen. Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 42, Issue 4, July 2021, Pages 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.02.001

Abstract: Existing work suggests that observers' perceptions of sociosexuality from strangers' faces are positively associated with individuals' self-reported sociosexuality. However it is not clear what cues observers use to form these judgements. Over two studies we examined whether sociosexuality is reflected in faces, which cues contain information about sociosexuality, and whether observers' perceptions of sociosexuality from faces are positively associated with individuals' self-reported sociosexuality. In Study One, Geometric Morphometric Modelling (GMM) analysis of 103 Caucasian participants revealed that self-reported sociosexuality was predicted by facial morphology in male but not female faces. In Study Two, 65 Caucasian participants judged the sociosexuality of opposite sex faces (faces from Study One) at zero acquaintance. Perceived sociosexuality predicted self-reported sociosexuality for men, but not women. Participants were also presented with composites of faces of individuals with more unrestricted sociosexuality paired with composites of faces of individuals with more restricted sociosexuality and asked to indicate which was more unrestricted. Participants selected the more unrestricted sociosexuality male, but not female, facial composites at rates significantly above chance. GMM analyses also found that facial morphology statistically significantly predicted perceived sociosexuality in women's and, to a greater extent, in men's faces. Finally, facial shape mediated the relationship between perceived sociosexuality and self-reported sociosexuality in men's but not women's faces. Our results suggest that facial shape acts as a valid cue to sociosexuality in men's but not women's faces.

Keywords: Face perceptionSociosexualityValid cues

Although increasing evidence highlights genetic contributions to male sexual orientation, our current understanding of contributory loci is still limited, consistent with the complexity of the trait

Genome-Wide Linkage Study Meta-Analysis of Male Sexual Orientation. Alan R. Sanders, Gary W. Beecham, Shengru Guo, Judith A. Badner, Sven Bocklandt, Brian S. Mustanski, Dean H. Hamer & Eden R. Marti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Jun 2 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-021-02035-3

Abstract: Male sexual orientation is a scientifically and socially important trait shown by family and twin studies to be influenced by environmental and complex genetic factors. Individual genome-wide linkage studies (GWLS) have been conducted, but not jointly analyzed. Two main datasets account for > 90% of the published GWLS concordant sibling pairs on the trait and are jointly analyzed here: MGSOSO (Molecular Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation; 409 concordant sibling pairs in 384 families, Sanders et al. (2015)) and Hamer (155 concordant sibling pairs in 145 families, Mustanski et al. (2005)). We conducted multipoint linkage analyses with Merlin on the datasets separately since they were genotyped differently, integrated genetic marker positions, and combined the resultant LOD (logarithm of the odds) scores at each 1 cM grid position. We continue to find the strongest linkage support at pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28. We also incorporated the remaining published GWLS dataset (on 55 families) by using meta-analytic approaches on published summary statistics. The meta-analysis has maximized the positional information from GWLS of currently available family resources and can help prioritize findings from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and other approaches. Although increasing evidence highlights genetic contributions to male sexual orientation, our current understanding of contributory loci is still limited, consistent with the complexity of the trait. Further increasing genetic knowledge about male sexual orientation, especially via large GWAS, should help advance our understanding of the biology of this important trait.

Discussion

Our primary analysis for this investigation was the joint analysis of multipoint linkage from the Hamer and MGSOSO datasets (Mustanski et al., 2005; Sanders et al., 2015), to which each dataset contributed some peaks (Fig. 1, Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). Overall, the maximum multipoint peaks increased little in height, though the pericentromeric chromosome 8 peak was broadened (Fig. 2). Chromosomes 8 and X retained the highest multipoint peaks genome-wide, mostly arising from the larger (MGSOSO) dataset (Fig. 2). The joint analysis gives a more comprehensive picture of shared and heterogeneous linkage regions (e.g., at pericentromeric chromosome 8), the studies share overlapping peaks (possibly suggesting heterogeneity, perhaps with different genes involved in the different datasets), and the evidence broadens the search. The secondary analyses on summary statistics using MSP and GSMA to incorporate all three (Hamer, MGSOSO, Canadian) GWLS datasets showed no genome-wide significant results though suggestive findings remained present. The joint analysis of multipoint linkage (Fig. 1) extracted the available positional information from collaborating GWLS, though previous GWLS findings were not much further strengthened in these analyses. Nevertheless, this provides information to complement other approaches, such as helping prioritize findings from GWAS. Linkage and association studies measure different genetic properties (i.e., segregation of a region within families, vs. correlation of alleles in a population), both of which provide clues about underlying trait genetics. Thus, since GWLS are different from GWAS, we were unable to directly combine any GWAS (e.g., Ganna et al., 2019) with the studied GWLS in our GWLS meta-analysis. Limitations include those inherent to linkage (as opposed to GWAS) of traits with complex genetics (e.g., their limited utility for phenotypes with contributions from more than one or a few genes); on the other hand, linkage retains some advantages over association approaches, such as being robust to allelic heterogeneity (Lipner & Greenberg, 2018). Accumulating genetic studies of the trait such as by much enlarged GWAS (e.g., Ganna et al., 2019) will be especially useful, given its successful application in the study of other phenotypes manifesting complex genetics (e.g., Fig. 3b in Sullivan et al. (2018)).

Relational turbulence (external changes to the relational environment compel romantic partners to navigate transitions by establishing new daily routines as interdependent couples) in COVID-19

Relational turbulence from the COVID-19 pandemic: Within-subjects mediation by romantic partner interdependence. Alan K. Goodboy et al. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, March 17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211000135

Abstract: Relational turbulence theory posits that external changes to the relational environment compel romantic partners to navigate transitions by establishing new daily routines as interdependent couples. The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented transition fraught with difficult changes that have the potential to be especially disruptive to romantic partners’ daily routines as couples alter their patterns of interdependence and adapt their everyday lives. To study the pandemic’s effect as a relational transition, college students in romantic relationships (N = 314) completed measures of partner facilitation and interference, negative emotions, and relational turbulence as they recalled what their relationships were like prior to the pandemic (January, 2020) and then reported on their relationships during the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the U.S. (April, 2020). On average, negative emotions (i.e., anger, fear, sadness) toward interacting with partners and relational turbulence both increased from before to during the pandemic, and partner interference was positively correlated, whereas facilitation was inversely correlated, with negative emotions during the pandemic. Results of a within-subjects mediation model revealed that changes in relational turbulence were explained, in part, by a decrease in partner interdependence due to the pandemic. A direct effect of the pandemic on increases in relational turbulence was also discovered.

Keywords: COVID-19, interdependence, negative emotions, relational turbulence model, relational turbulence theory

Discussion

In an effort to better understand how dating relationships are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, this study provided tests consistent with the RTM/RTT and demonstrated that this pandemic affected college students’ interdependence in their romantic relationships, their experience of negative emotions in those relationships, and ultimately the stability of those relationships. Specifically, compared to how romantic relationships were recalled before the pandemic, during the pandemic, on average, interference and facilitation from a partner in everyday routines declined, negative emotions toward the partner were amplified, and relational turbulence became more prevalent. Collectively, these results confirm RTT’s claim that transitions create changes to relational environments that modify patterns of interdependence, which ultimately give rise to more chaotic relational states (Solomon et al., 2016).

The decrease in partner interdependence might be explained by college students’ restrictions for contact during the pandemic. That is, their partner’s ability to facilitate or interfere with daily routines becomes less influential if their overall contact and time spent together has decreased due to pandemic-related constraints. Put simply, romantic partners might see each other less, providing fewer opportunities to interfere or facilitate. A post-hoc analysis provided evidence for this explanation of decreased interdependence; on average, partners saw each other 4.400 times a week before the pandemic (SD = 2.199), which decreased to an average of 3.220 times a week during the pandemic (SD = 2.496); t(300) = 7.305, p < .001, d = .420. This limited contact explanation could explain the decreases in interdependence from before to during the pandemic. For instance, some students might have moved back home and now live with a parent or parents after college campuses discontinued in-person educational offerings and switched to online instruction (Sahu, 2020). Post-hoc descriptive statistics revealed additional evidence for this limited contact explanation as partners reported increases in geographical separation after the pandemic started. Prior to the pandemic, 50.2% of partners were geographically within 15 minutes of their partner (n = 158), whereas during the pandemic, only 28.3% of partners remained within a 15-minute travel proximity (n = 89). From these post-hoc contact explorations revealing decreased weekly contact with and increased geographical distance from partners, we believe that partner interdependence declined because of new living situations that were required as romantic partners moved from college campuses and were no longer enrolled in on-campus courses or experiencing an on-campus college life.

The within-subjects mediation model revealed parallel indirect effects for partner interdependence (both interference and facilitation) on relational turbulence, as well as a direct effect of the pandemic itself on relational turbulence. With regard to the former, increases in relational turbulence were explained in part by decreases in facilitation and interference. That is, slightly less relational turbulence was experienced to the extent that partners interfered less with daily routines during the pandemic, but at the same time, relational turbulence increased more to the extent that partners did not facilitate as much with daily routines either. These opposite indirect effects are in line with the wealth of research demonstrating that interference creates turbulence whereas facilitation diminishes it (e.g., McLaren et al., 2011, 2012; Solomon & Priem, 2016). However, a direct effect revealed that, controlling for changes in partner facilitation and interference, the pandemic itself was associated with a change in more relational turbulence above and beyond partners’ decreases in interdependence. Pandemic stressors, independent of partner interdependence, appear to disrupt the stability of romantic relationships. Although relational research on the pandemic is limited as of this writing, preliminary findings suggest that stressors from the pandemic, including social isolation, financial strain, and perceived stress, are associated with lower romantic relationship quality (Balzarini et al., 2020).

During the pandemic, college students reported an increase in negative emotions toward communicating with their romantic partners including more anger, fear, and sadness. This increase in negative emotions might be indicative of partners’ daily emotional welfare being compromised as a byproduct of the pandemic. Lades et al. (2020) found when individuals stayed home during the pandemic and did not pursue outside activities, they experienced more negative affect. However, partner interference was strongly associated with these negative emotions, which is in line with previous research in other transitional contexts (Brisini & Solomon, 2019; Knobloch et al., 2007; Knobloch & Theiss, 2010; Solomon & Brisini, 2019). From a discrete emotions perspective, such negative affect may result because partner interference behaviors are perceived as threatening, uncontrollable attempts to impede one’s goals (Nabi, 2002). Axiom 2 of RTT received support as individuals felt more anger, fear, and sadness when interacting with their partner when routines were interrupted by them during the pandemic.

The findings from this investigation extend the purview of RTT to the novel context of a global health emergency and demonstrate support for the theory’s utility in the specific context of a pandemic. This research furthers a line of relatively recent scholarship which applies and tests the mechanisms of RTT when romantic partners are experiencing situations that are out of the ordinary, further illustrating RTT’s efficacy in explaining both normative and nonnormative relational experiences (e.g., Tian & Solomon, 2020). With regard to the latter, some findings emerged here which appear to be unique to the particular context under study. For example, although transitions typically evoke increased interference and attendant negative emotions from a partner (see Solomon et al., 2010), here we found that both forms of partner interdependence decreased from before to during the pandemic. It seems clear (and others have concluded) that interference is complex and unique to the transition in question (Harvey-Knowles & Faw, 2016), as some transitions naturally lend themselves to more—or in this case, less—partner interdependence, given the stringent social distancing guidelines that have characterized the pandemic in the U.S. Although partner interference is a negatively valenced construct in RTT, and thereby the reduction of interference should lead to concomitant reductions in the experience of relational turbulence, here that effect appears to have been offset by the concurrent experience of decreased partner facilitation (again, likely due to the inherent social distancing constraints of the pandemic for the college student daters in this sample, most of whom were geographically distant). In this investigation, we observed an increase in relational turbulence, which was indirectly affected by decreased partner facilitation and directly exacerbated by the nature of the pandemic itself.

Further, the findings from this study highlight the complex role of interdependence processes within RTT, and provide some evidence for the ways in which partner interference and facilitation work together (or in this case, work against each other) to impact the experience of relational turbulence in college student dating relationships. From RTT’s perspective, the least amount of turbulence should result when partner facilitation is high while partner interference is low. Here, partner interference decreased, yet so did partner facilitation. Thus, although RTT suggests that partner facilitation may at times serve a sort of buffering function against interference or the effect of transitions, this buffering effect could not be realized (despite the decrease in partner interference) because the pandemic constrained the ability to facilitate (and to interfere with) a partner’s daily routines. Perhaps because of this, the findings from this study suggested that the pandemic itself as compared to interdependence processes had the strongest impact on the experience of relational turbulence. It is important to note that the nuances of these findings regarding interdependence processes are expected to be context-dependent, as the majority of college student daters who comprised this sample were geographically distant during the pandemic. It is likely that a different pattern of results would emerge for married or cohabitating couples with regard to interdependence processes, for whom it is unlikely that both partner facilitation and interference would decrease during this extended time of social distancing, working remotely, homeschooling children, etc. For married and cohabitating couples, interdependence processes are expected to play a stronger role in the experience of relational turbulence during a pandemic (Knoster et al., 2020).

The collective results reveal several practical implications for romantic relationships of all types, including marital relationships, during the pandemic. First, it is important to recognize that transitions are times rife with relational turbulence for couples as changes to external environments produce chaotic relational states (Solomon et al., 2010). Life, in general, has been chaotic since the pandemic began and has created stressors external to interdependent relationships that carry over into it and naturally affect its quality (Balzarini et al., 2020). It is important for partners to recognize that their romantic relationships may be strained from the pandemic, and they might expect negative affect and tumultuous sensitivities for their relationships as these are processes theorized to result from the experience of transitions (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). Second, in order to more successfully navigate the pandemic, and to navigate extreme or nonnormative relational episodes more generally, it is important for relational partners to adapt to the “new normal” by establishing neoteric patterns of interdependence that encourage relational stability. This could include establishing new daily routines and/or maintain existing ones for psychosocial benefits (WHO, 2020). These daily routines are not all instrumental or occupational; they include hobbies as well, which have been identified as particularly important for maintaining emotional well-being during the pandemic (Lades et al., 2020).

Third, in order to more effectively manage intense relational experiences, romantic partners should put in extra efforts to facilitate their partners’ daily routines, and actively try not to interfere with them. It is possible that only so much facilitation can be reasonably and safely enacted during the pandemic (and further, some research with the RTT in the context of intense relational episodes suggests that facilitation does not always lead to positive outcomes; Tian & Solomon, 2020), so college student partners in particular—as opposed to spouses, for example—might acknowledge they have less overall influence on their partners’ daily routines since the pandemic commenced. Fourth, romantic partners should realize that their reactivity during the pandemic and other extreme relational experiences is likely to be exacerbated, and this reactivity may manifest in the form of more extreme or perhaps even volatile emotions, cognitions, and communicative behaviors (Solomon et al., 2010, 2016). Such extreme reactions have implications for a variety of relational processes, including seeking/providing social support and engaging in conflict. As such, romantic partners should be cognizant of the far-reaching impact of intense experiences such as the current global health pandemic on everyday functioning in the relationship. Being aware of the potential for such reactivity may encourage partners to pause and reassess rather than overreact and engage in communication or other behaviors that could possibly damage the relationship.

Although important insights about the pandemic’s impact on the stability of romantic relationships emerged from this investigation, the findings must be interpreted in light of the limitations that were present. The primary limitation of this research was the reliance on recollections of the romantic relationship pre-pandemic (January, 2020) with a data collection that took place during the pandemic (April, 2020). Partners reported on what their relationship was like 4 months prior and then reported on how their relationship was currently during the peak of the pandemic. This method of reporting on the relationship during a previous time and at the time of the survey has been used by previous relational turbulence scholars (Brisini et al., 2018). However, asking participants to report on “then and now” repeated measurements in the same survey presents recall limitations for modeling within-participant “change.” Yet, to design a study with two time points, we would have needed prior knowledge that a global pandemic was imminent to have collected data before it began. Thus, our repeated measurements in the same survey are a proxy for change, but cannot actually measure true changes over time, and there is a chance that recall bias was an issue (i.e., a particular fondness for “before times”). Another limitation is the college student sample which might have derived different effects due to physical separation from college campuses. As such, future researchers should examine pandemic effects in marriages and test RTT within cohabitating contexts, which might offer different conclusions from more established patterns of interdependence in shared living arrangements.

Future researchers should also continue to study major transitions as opportunities to model relational turbulence. Although transitions are not a scope condition for testing RTT because partner influence can and does occur at any point in a close relationship (Berscheid, 2002), transitions are periods of discontinuity where interdependence will change as the relational environment is affected (Solomon et al., 2016). Future researchers might also examine how the COVID-19 pandemic has created relational uncertainty, and in turn, resulted in biased cognitions as purported by RTT. To keep our survey brief with repeated measures, we only examined half of the relationship parameters in RTT. Relational uncertainty is at the core of RTT and deserves empirical attention as the pandemic continues. Finally, scholars should examine processes of relational turbulence in both dating and married samples to compare effects for generalizability (Brisini & Solomon, 2019). Although these two types of relationships have produced similar effect sizes in the relational turbulence literature (Goodboy et al., 2020), nonetheless, it remains important to continue studying both types of relationships.

This study explored changes in some of the relational processes proposed by RTT that were experienced by dating partners before the COVID-19 pandemic began to the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the U.S. The findings revealed pandemic-related relational impacts in the form of decreased partner interdependence, increased experience of negative affect, and heightened relational turbulence (explained both by decreased partner interdependence and by the impact of the pandemic itself). These results provide continued support for RTT’s predictive and explanatory utility, and importantly, suggest practical mitigation strategies for couples who are coping with the ongoing global health crisis. This work provides support for Solomon and Brisini’s (2019) assertion that “RTT may have the greatest value when it illuminates the challenges that confront couples coping with significant life transitions, especially those that impose economic, health, or emotional burdens” (p. 2432).

COVID-19 lockdown: Women did more chores & had less satisfaction; men who were the primary caregiver or were not working fulltime had negative relationship outcomes when they did more housework & parenting

Gendered division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. Nina Waddell et al. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, March 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476

Abstract: COVID-19 lockdowns have required many working parents to balance domestic and paid labor while confined at home. Are women and men equally sharing the workload? Are inequities in the division of labor compromising relationships? Leveraging a pre-pandemic longitudinal study of couples with young children, we examine gender differences in the division and impact of domestic and paid labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown (N = 157 dyads). Women did more of the parenting and housework, whereas men engaged in more paid work and personal time, during the lockdown. Couple members agreed that women’s share of parenting, housework and personal time was unfair, but this did not protect women from the detrimental relationship outcomes associated with an inequitable share of domestic labor. A greater, and more unfair, share of parenting, housework and personal time predicted residual increases in relationship problems and decreases in relationship satisfaction for women. Exploratory analyses indicated that men who were the primary caregiver or were not working fulltime also experienced negative relationship outcomes when they did more housework and parenting. These results substantiate concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic may undermine advances toward gender equality by reinforcing inequitable divisions of labor, thereby damaging women’s relationship wellbeing.

Keywords: COVID-19 lockdown, division of labor, housework, parenting, relationship problems

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic poses considerable challenges to couples, including lockdowns forcing working parents to coordinate an increase in domestic and paid labor. We leveraged an existing study of mixed-gender couples with young children assessed prior to the pandemic and conducted pre-registered tests of gender differences in the division and impact of domestic and paid labor as families endured a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Although lockdowns offer opportunities for couples to more equally share the domestic load, women did more of the parenting and housework, whereas men generally engaged in more paid work and personal time. Couple members agreed that the balance of labor was unfair on women, but this did not protect women from the detrimental outcomes of a greater domestic burden. Women who were unfairly doing a greater share of housework and parenting, and having less personal time, experienced residual increases in relationship problems and residual decreases in satisfaction.

The inequities in domestic labor and detrimental effects on women’s relationship outcomes occurred irrespective of caregiver or employment status. These results substantiate concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic may have greater risks for women, including quarantine efforts reinforcing gender inequality and placing greater strains on women’s health and wellbeing. Interestingly, exploratory analyses provided tentative evidence that men who were the primary caregiver or not working fulltime also experienced poorer relationship outcomes when they did more of the domestic labor. Thus, generating an equitable division of labor is an important target to protect the health and wellbeing of women (and men) who are shouldering more of the home demands exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.

Couples agree: Women are doing more labor and this division is perceived as unfair

Both women and men reported that women did more housework and parenting, whereas men engaged in more paid work and personal time. The overall pattern of division of housework and parenting is consistent with established gender differences (Bianchi et al., 2000; Kamp Dush et al., 2018; Newkirk et al., 2017) and those reported during the pandemic (Carlson et al., 2020; Craig & Churchill, 2020). Gathering reports from couples, however, clarified that the gender differences typically shown by between-group comparisons of individual reports are evident when comparing women’s and men’s reports within the same relationship. The overall pattern illustrated that, despite home confinement potentially reducing structural barriers to men sharing housework and parenting, both women and men agree that women are shouldering the increased burden of domestic labor arising from COVID-19 lockdowns.

Yet, despite agreeing that gender differences existed, women and men disagreed about the extent of the inequity. Although men reported that women were doing more housework and having less personal time, women reported doing more housework and having less personal time than men’s reports acknowledged. These discrepancies could emerge because housework is less valued than other domains and thus not as visible or fully appreciated. Men may also tend to underestimate the time and energy housework involves due to their lower contribution to this domain, and consequently overestimate the personal time women are afforded or perhaps misinterpret some activities as personal time (e.g., planning, playing with children). It is also possible that women’s greater share of housework and men’s greater share of personal time result in women viewing these inequities as even greater than they are. Importantly, regardless of why disagreement across couples emerged, such disagreement may contribute to the persistence of gender discrepancies in domestic labor. For example, if women’s share of the housework or lack of personal time is not fully appreciated by partners then there is likely less chance that couples will work together to rectify these inequities.

Despite disagreeing about how much more housework and how much less personal time women were engaging compared to men, women and men equally perceived that the relative labor in these domains was unfair. Couples may have more insights into each other’s perceived fairness, perhaps because people are more likely to directly or indirectly communicate their discontent with unfairness. Couples also may consider relative fairness, rather than amount of time and energy spent, when considering each other’s contributions. The prominence of perceived fairness in the evaluation and effects of equity is why perceived fairness tends to have relatively stronger effects on relationship outcomes (Greenstein, 1996). Nonetheless, men’s recognition that the division of domestic labor was more unfair on women did not protect women from the detrimental relationship outcomes associated with a greater domestic burden.

Perceiving inequities as unfair create relationship problems and dissatisfaction for women

Leveraging an existing dyadic study enabled us to uniquely assess how couples’ division of labor predicted residual changes in relationship problems and satisfaction. The pattern of results confirmed that women are more at risk of the negative relationship outcomes associated with perceiving an unfair share of housework, parenting and personal time. With regard to housework, women who reported a more inequitable and unfair division experienced greater problems and lower satisfaction. Applying an equity perspective, tests of the interaction between the relative division and perceived fairness of housework revealed that women who did more housework than their partner and perceived their larger share as unfair experienced the greatest residual increases in relationship problems and reductions in satisfaction.

Perceived unfairness of parenting was also central to how couples’ division of parenting shaped women’s relationship outcomes. Prior cross-sectional studies indicate that inequity and unfairness in the division of parenting is associated with greater conflict and lower satisfaction (Newkirk et al., 2017; Schieman et al., 2018). In the current study, only perceived unfairness in parenting predicted residual changes in problem and satisfaction. A significant interaction also revealed that women who did more parenting than their partner only experienced greater relationship problems when they perceived their share of parenting to be unfair on them. Compared to the onerous necessity of housework, parenting may often be personally fulfilling (Tully et al., 1999) in ways that compensate for a greater burden of the parenting workload. Any compensation of personal fulfilment, however, may not be enough to counter dissatisfaction and problems in the marital relationship when mothers feel their greater contribution is unfair.

Our investigation also extended insight into the relative impact of an unfair division in both domestic and personal activities. First, the impact of gender inequities in domestic labor were not balanced by counter inequities in other domains. Although men on average did more paid work, neither women or men experienced poorer relationship outcomes as a function of a greater or more unfair share of paid work. Instead, women experienced greater problems when their partner perceived their work was unfair, perhaps due to men’s feelings of unfairness creating more relationship difficulties managing expectations around housework, parenting and personal domains. Second, couples agreed that men (on average) had more personal time than women, and men who had relatively more personal time reported lower problems and greater satisfaction. However, couples agreed that women’s lower share of personal time was unfair, and women (but not men) who had less personal time relative to their partner and perceived the share of personal time to be unfair experienced greater relationship problems and lower satisfaction.

Detrimental effects of inequities in domestic labor occur for women regardless of family role, but men who occupy domestic roles may experience similar outcomes as women

More women (50.3%) than men (16.6%) were the primary caregiver, and more men (64.3%) than women (29.9%) worked fulltime. Nonetheless, the gender differences in the division and perceived fairness of parenting, housework and personal time, and the effects of the relative division and fairness of parenting, housework and personal time on women’s relationship outcomes, did not vary across women and men’s caregiver and employment status. Thus, the gendered pattern of the division of labor, and the detrimental effects of the division and perceived fairness of housework and parenting on women’s relationship outcomes, occurred for women in traditional and non-traditional family roles.

Interestingly, however, additional analyses provided some tentative evidence that men may experience poorer relationship outcomes when their family role or situation forces them to pick up more domestic labor. In general, men did not report greater relationship problems or lower relationship satisfaction when they reported doing more housework or parenting or perceived their contributions in these domains were unfair. However, when exploring the moderating role of caregiver and employment status, a small number of consistent effects emerged. Men who were primary caregivers and reported an inequitable division of parenting, and men who were not working fulltime and reported that the division of housework was inequitable or unfair, experienced greater problems and lower satisfaction. This pattern of results indicates that men who take on more of the domestic work and perceive their contribution as unfair experience the same negative relationship outcomes as women.

These novel findings indicate a promising direction for future research by highlighting that the constraints of social roles, in addition to gender, are important for understanding the division and impact of domestic labor (Eagly & Wood, 2016). In particular, the pattern of expected and unexpected effects indicates that prescriptive pressures regarding women’s and men’s social roles result in women experiencing poor outcomes from carrying the burden of domestic labor across social contexts as well as men experiencing negative outcomes when men occupy women’s traditional social role. However, given these unexpected findings for men involved 4 out of 16 interaction effects tested, and the sample composition (16.6% men primary caregivers, 35.7% men not working fulltime) did not provide optimal conditions for these comparisons, future research is needed to more reliably test this intriguing pattern by gathering samples that more evenly represent different family role configurations. Such efforts may also emphasize the primary findings from the current study. Specifically, although these additional findings indicate that poor outcomes may emerge for both women and men who are shouldering more of the domestic labor, women experience more relationship difficulties arising from an unfair division of labor across contexts regardless of family roles.

Caveats and conclusions

Compared to typical large cross-sectional surveys of individuals, our dyadic and longitudinal design provides stronger evidence that an unequal and unfair division labor is likely to increase relationship problems and reduce relationship satisfaction when couples need to be working together to manage the challenges of COVID-19 lockdowns. Dyadic longitudinal designs, however, necessarily restrict sample size and thus statistical power to test for gender differences and interactions. The majority of the effects shown for women were significantly different from the null effects for men, supporting our general conclusions. We also focused on sets of theoretically relevant interactions, but some interaction patterns for relationship problems were relatively weak, likely because problems involve difficulties arising from both individuals’ and partners’ discontent. Finally, our sample involved relatively satisfied couples who agreed that the division was unfair on women. The detrimental outcomes shown here are likely to be magnified in couples who are facing more challenges, report greater discrepancies in the relative division and perceived fairness of labor, and who enter the pandemic and lockdowns with greater relationship difficulties.

Despite these caveats, the results indicate that key challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic are more likely to have detrimental effects on women. Women were more unfairly burdened with domestic labor, and as a consequence were more likely to experience increased relationship problems and dissatisfaction. Accounting for caregiver and employment status revealed that women experienced these poor outcomes across family roles and contexts. The detrimental impact of these inequities is unlikely to be fleeting and may grow as the pandemic and related economic and family disruptions continue across time. Couples who learn to share the load more equitably, however, may protect women from relationship difficulties at a time when satisfying, supportive relationships are crucial for health and wellbeing.

We provide strong evidence for greater male variability in preferences; men are more likely to have extreme time, risk, and social preferences, while women are more likely to have moderate preferences

Converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences. Christian Thöni and Stefan Volk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 8, 2021 118 (23) e2026112118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026112118

Significance: There is continuing interest in the study of gender differences in economic and social outcomes. An important factor underlying gender differences in outcomes are gender differences in fundamental economic preferences, which are at the core of many differential choices of women and men. We provide strong evidence for greater male variability in preferences. We find that men are more likely to have extreme time, risk, and social preferences, while women are more likely to have moderate preferences. With the focus on mean differences, the current literature underestimates the importance of gender differences and their effects on differential choices and outcomes between women and men.

Abstract: Gender differences in time, risk, and social preferences are important determinants of differential choices of men and women, with broad implications for gender-specific social and economic outcomes. To better understand the shape and form of gender differences in preferences, researchers have traditionally examined the mean differences between the two genders. We present an alternative perspective of greater male variability in preferences. In a meta-analysis of experimental economics studies with more than 50,000 individuals in 97 samples, we find converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences. In some cases, we find greater male variability in addition to mean differences; in some cases, we only find greater male variability. Our findings suggest that theories of gender differences are incomplete if they fail to consider how the complex interaction of between-gender differences and within-gender variability determines differential choices and outcomes between women and men.

Keywords: gendergreater male variabilitypreferencesmeta-analysis

From 2019... Urban spatial order: street network orientation, configuration, and entropy

From 2019... Urban spatial order: street network orientation, configuration, and entropy. Geoff Boeing. Applied Network Science volume 4, Article number: 67. Aug 23 2019. https://appliednetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s41109-019-0189-1

Abstract: Street networks may be planned according to clear organizing principles or they may evolve organically through accretion, but their configurations and orientations help define a city’s spatial logic and order. Measures of entropy reveal a city’s streets’ order and disorder. Past studies have explored individual cases of orientation and entropy, but little is known about broader patterns and trends worldwide. This study examines street network orientation, configuration, and entropy in 100 cities around the world using OpenStreetMap data and OSMnx. It measures the entropy of street bearings in weighted and unweighted network models, along with each city’s typical street segment length, average circuity, average node degree, and the network’s proportions of four-way intersections and dead-ends. It also develops a new indicator of orientation-order that quantifies how a city’s street network follows the geometric ordering logic of a single grid. A cluster analysis is performed to explore similarities and differences among these study sites in multiple dimensions. Significant statistical relationships exist between city orientation-order and other indicators of spatial order, including street circuity and measures of connectedness. On average, US/Canadian study sites are far more grid-like than those elsewhere, exhibiting less entropy and circuity. These indicators, taken in concert, help reveal the extent and nuance of the grid. These methods demonstrate automatic, scalable, reproducible tools to empirically measure and visualize city spatial order, illustrating complex urban transportation system patterns and configurations around the world.

Discussion

The urban design historian Spiro Kostof once said: “We ‘read’ form correctly only to the extent that we are familiar with the precise cultural conditions that generated it… The more we know about cultures, about the structure of society in various periods of history in different parts of the world, the better we are able to read their built environment” (Kostof 1991, p. 10). This study does not identify whether or how a city is planned or not. Specific spatial logics cannot be conflated with planning itself, which takes diverse forms and embodies innumerable patterns and complex structures, as do informal settlements and organic urban fabrics. In many cities, centrally planned and self-organized spatial patterns coexist, as the urban form evolves over time or as a city expands to accrete new heterogeneous urban forms through synoecism.

Yet these findings do, in concert, illustrate different urban spatial ordering principles and help explain some nuances of griddedness. For example, gridded Buenos Aires has a φ value suggesting it only follows a single grid to a 15% extent. However, its low circuity and high average node degree values demonstrate how it actually comprises multiple competing grids—which can indeed be seen in Figs. 4 and 5—and it clusters accordingly in Figs. 6 and 7 with gridded American cities. Jointly considered, the φ indicator, average circuity, average node degree, and median street segment length tell us about the extent of griddedness and its character (curvilinear, straight-line, monolithic, heterogeneous, coarse-grained, etc.). Charlotte further illustrates the importance of taking these indicators together. Although its φ and orientation entropy are more similar to European cities’ than American cities’, it is of course an oversimplification to claim that Charlotte is therefore the US city with the most “European” street network—in fact, its median street segment length is about 50% longer than that of the average European city, and among European cities, Charlotte clusters primarily with those of the Communist Bloc. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, sits alone in a small sub-cluster with Munich and Vienna.

We find that cities with higher φ values also tend to have higher node degrees, more four-way intersections, fewer dead-ends, and less-winding street patterns. That is, cities that are more consistently organized according to a grid tend to exhibit greater connectedness and less circuity. Interestingly, the Ηo and Ηw orientation entropies are extremely similar and strongly correlated: the weighted curvatures (versus straight-line orientation) of individual street segments have little impact on citywide orientation entropy, but the average circuity of the city network as a whole positively correlates with orientation entropy. This finding deserves further exploration.

These results also demonstrate substantial regional differences around the world. Across these study sites, US/Canadian cities have an average φ value nearly thirteen-times greater than that of European cities, alongside nearly double the average proportion of four-way intersections. Meanwhile, these European cities’ streets on average are 42% more circuitous than those of the US/Canadian cities. These findings illustrate the differences between North American and European urban patterns. However, likely due to such regional heterogeneity, this study finds statistical relationships somewhat weaker (though still significant) than prior findings examining cities in the UK exclusively.

Accordingly, given the heterogeneity of these world regions, future research can estimate separate statistical models for individual regions or countries—or even the neighborhoods of a single city to draw these findings closer to the scale of planning/design practice. The methods and indicators developed here offer planners and designers a toolbox to quantify urban form patterns and compare their own cities to those elsewhere in the world. Our preliminary results suggest trends and patterns, but future work should introduce additional controls to clarify relationships and make these findings more actionable for researchers and practitioners. For instance, topography likely constrains griddedness and influences circuity and orientation entropy: a study of urban elevation change and hilliness in conjunction with entropy and circuity would help clarify these relationships. Additionally, further research can unpack the relationship between development era, design paradigm, city size, transportation planning objectives, and street network entropy to explore how network growth and evolution affect spatial order. Finally, given the importance of taking multiple indicators in concert, future work can develop a grid-index to unify them and eventually include streetscape and width attributes as further enrichment to explore walkability and travel behavior.