Working in a law firm in Chicago, Michelle Robinson was assigned as a mentor to a new hire that recently joined the law firm. After spending several weeks together, the new hire asked Michelle on a date. Michelle refused – she was his boss and did not think it was appropriate. But the new hire was persistent and kept asking her out. Michelle Robinson finally agreed to date him. In 1992, three years after starting to work together, Michelle and Barack Obama got married (Obama, Reference Obama2021).
Romantic relationships at work are common, with some surveys estimating that over 50 percent of employees were engaged in an intimate relationship with a colleague at work (Elsesser, Reference Elsesser2019). After all, working individuals spend a significant amount of time at work and interact daily with people who they many times perceive as similar to them across different characteristics. The idea that “birds of feather flock together” is well-documented in relationship research and relies on the similarity-attraction framework (Byrne, Reference Byrne1971; Montoya et al., Reference Montoya, Horton and Kirchner2008; Newcomb, Reference Newcomb1961). The workplace, which brings together similar people, is, therefore, a fertile ground for the formation of romantic relationships (Reich & Hershcovis, Reference Reich, Hershcovis and Zedeck2011).
Romantic relationships are also affected by work. Beyond financial resources that can be a source of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction in romantic relationships (Ward et al., Reference Ward, Park, Walsh, Naragon-Gainey, Paravati and Whillans2021), work competes with romantic relationships on resources like time, energy, and attention but also provides individuals with resources that may positively affect romantic relationships like self-esteem, meaning, and the development of different skills that may be applied to romantic relationships. Importantly, the work domain is influential in romantic relationships not only because people spend a significant amount of their life at work. The work domain is part of a system of social institutions (Turner, Reference Turner1997) that shape human behavior and are embedded with values, norms, and rules that direct and reproduce human behavior. In this chapter, we provide an overview of romantic relationships at work and their corollaries, both positive outcomes such as the formation of romantic relationships, and negative outcomes, such as sexual harassment.
The chapter is divided into three parts. In Part I we discuss romantic relationships at work, work sexual harassment, and the ways in which organizations attempt to regulate romantic relationships at work. These policies have a role in romantic relationships in and out of work. Organizational policies and norms can be directly related to romantic relationships; for example, human resources policies that specify “dos and don’ts” at work may be part of a broader policy at work (e.g., sexual harassment and abuse of power policies). Relationships may even be a part of a policy not intended to regulate romantic relationship (e.g., policies about the nature of interactions between employees at a work). Government policies also play a role in romantic relationships at work, though their effect is more distal. For example, sexual harassment laws that protect individuals might also deter individuals from forming romantic relationships at work.
In Part II of the chapter, we discuss the influence work has on romantic relationships outside work – how different aspects of work spill over to family life and affect romantic relationships. The spillover of work into romantic relationships can be both negative and positive. For example, a negative impact of work on romantic relationships is competition and conflict between work and romantic relationships (e.g., competition and conflict over finite time and energy resources) as well as spillover of negative emotions from the work to the romantic relationship. A positive impact of work on romantic relationships can include resources that are generated at work (e.g., compensation, learned skills) and positively influence the romantic relationship or spillover of positive emotions, moods, and feelings from the work domain to the romantic relationship.
Finally, in Part III, we take an economic perspective on romantic relationships. We begin by shortly reviewing an economic perspective on marriage markets (Becker, Reference Becker1973) and apply it to the workplace, as a local marriage market (Lichter et al., Reference Lichter, LeClere and McLaughlin1991). We apply the economic principles of rational choice, supply and demand, and utility maximization to provide a view of romantic relationships that is driven by economic principles. We then discuss the role of outcomes of work, wages, and status in the formation of romantic relationships and the relative bargaining power individuals have in romantic relationships.
Romantic Relationships at Work
Definition and Prevalence
Romantic relationships at work consist of mutually desired non-platonic relationships between two members of the organization. We define these relationships broadly, as a non-platonic relationship in which affection is communicated, sexual attraction is present, and both members perceive the relationship to extend beyond a professional relationship (Chory & Hoke, Reference Chory and Gillen Hoke2020; Pierce & Aguinis, Reference Pierce and Aguinis2001; Pierce et al., Reference Pierce, Broberg, McClure and Aguinis2004). The prevalence of romantic relationships at work is quite significant, with surveys reporting more than 70 percent of employees in the United Kingdom (Clarke, Reference Clarke2006) and 58 percent of American employees have experienced a romantic relationship at work, including 82 percent of those who are fifty years old or over (Elesser, 2019). Furthermore, it is estimated that about 10 percent of employees have married a person they met at work (SHRM, 2011). Surprisingly, relative to its frequent occurrence, romantic relationships at work have not received significant research attention. This is especially surprising given the potential impact these relationships may have on individuals, families, and organizations.
Differentiating Hierarchical and Lateral Romantic Relationships at Work
Romantic relationships at work are typically divided into two types: lateral romantic relationships between employees who have a similar organizational status and hierarchical romantic relationship between employees who differ in their organizational status (Pierce & Aguinis, Reference Pierce and Aguinis1997, Reference Pierce and Aguinis2003). Society, organizations, and employees perceive hierarchical romantic relationships more negatively, as they entail a greater potential for both abuse and favoritism (Pierce & Aguinis, Reference Pierce and Aguinis2003). These negative perceptions of hierarchical romantic relationships have increased substantially with the rise of the #MeToo movement (Cavico & Mujtaba, Reference Cavico and Mujtaba2021; Green, Reference Green2019), which was founded in 2006 to increase people’s awareness to the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment in society, especially among women in minority groups and in low-income communities. The #MeToo movement has had a profound impact on workplaces and perceptions of sexual harassment and abuse of power at work (Murphy, Reference Murphy2019). Lateral romantic relationships receive little attention in the literature, which might be surprising given the implications any relationship might have on individuals’ work outcomes (e.g., coworker trust; Chory & Hoke, Reference Chory and Gillen Hoke2020) and non-work outcomes (e.g., psychological well-being; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Jianguo, Usman and Ahmad2017).
The difference between hierarchical and lateral romantic relationships extends beyond a simple categorization and the potential for abuse and favoritism. The differences in power and status in hierarchical romantic relationships also intersect with gender, race, and ethnicity. Specifically, white men are much more likely to be in positions of power in organizations than women and people of color. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) reports that among executives, 85.7 percent are white and 70.9 percent are male. Only 5.9 percent of executives are Black and 6.8 percent are Hispanic or Latino. As such, hierarchical romantic relationships at work are likely to replicate power and status differences in society and reinforce gender and racial inequality at work and outside.
Indeed, past research on romantic relationships at work is heavily focused on hierarchical relationships because of their potential to be exploitive and lead to both favoritism and sexual harassment. Mainiero (2020) discusses the relationship between sexuality and power in the workplace, and the emphasis brought by the #MeToo movement to the gendered nature of these relationships. Studies preceding the rise of the #MeToo movement (e.g., Anderson & Hunsaker, Reference Anderson and Hunsaker1985; Mainiero, Reference Mainiero1986) have suggested that regardless of power status, women will be more negatively evaluated than men when engaging in a romantic relationship at work. These gendered outcomes might be a result of a gendered attribution of success and failure. Specifically, men’s successes are more likely to be attributed to relatively fixed factors like knowledge, skills, and abilities whereas men’s failures are more likely to be attributed to externalities (e.g., luck). Women’s successes, however, are more likely to be attributed to externalities (e.g., luck, having a good team) whereas their failures are more likely to be attributed to fixed factors (Lopez & Ensari, Reference Lopez and Ensari2014; Mainiero, Reference Mainiero1986; Seo et al., Reference Seo, Huang and Han2017). Again, work replicates power structures in society and applies normative perceptions of gender inequality to the work domain.
Differentiating Romantic Relationships from Sexual Harassment at Work
A point of contention in research and organizational practices on romantic relationships at work is concerned with distinguishing courting and romantic relationships at work from sexual harassment. In many cases, the sexual harassment and abuse of power are clear and appalling such as the case with Corey Coleman, the personnel chief of FEMA, who allegedly hired some women as possible sexual partners for male employees (Rein, Reference Rein2018), or Harvey Weinstein who required sexual relations as a quid pro quo and was also convicted on several felony sex crimes, including rape (NY Times, 2020). However, in some cases, what might begin as a consensual romantic relationship at work, might develop over time to sexual harassment (Pierce & Aguinis, Reference Pierce and Aguinis2009). We, therefore, provide a short review of sexual harassment at work to differentiate it from romantic relationships at work and continue with a review of organizational practices that attempt to accommodate romantic relationships at work while preventing sexual harassment.
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment in the workplace can occur at the individual level and also be present as part of the organizational climate. At the individual level, sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022). To be illegal, harassment needs to be frequent or severe. creating an intimidating, hostile, or abusive working environment or to result in an adverse employment decision (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022). For example, although asking a person at work on a date is not considered sexual harassment, requiring a date as a condition for promotion, or requiring any sexual conduct in exchange for refraining from an employment related decision (e.g., firing) are types of sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment can also extend to the climate of the organization or a unit within the organization when it creates a hostile or offensive work environment. For example, when several employees repeatedly make offensive comments about women in general (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022), sexual harassment can take the form of an organizational climate in which an individual’s performance and well-being, at work and outside work, are negatively affected by the work environment. Such climate occurs, for example, when the work environment includes repeated inappropriate touching, suggestive remarks, sexual jokes, or display of sexually suggestive symbols or photos (Dessler, Reference Dessler2010; Griffith, Reference Griffith2019). Implied by these two categories of sexual harassment is that people in power have more opportunities to harass their employees because they are less likely to suffer from negative work and social sanctions and can allocate organizational rewards and penalties. However, supervisors, coworkers, subordinates, and even people outside the organization (e.g., customers) of any gender can be harassers or victims (Center for American Progress, 2018).
A feminist perspective takes a broader view and analyzes sexual harassment at work through the lenses of power, privilege, and gender inequality (Seo et al., Reference Seo, Huang and Han2017). Using this perspective, sexual harassment at work is not only a result of differences in power between managers (usually men) and subordinates (men and/or women) but also a result of the threat men feel from the presence of women in the workplace, especially women in power positions. Specifically, from a feminist perspective, sexual harassment at work is used to restore the power dynamics between men and women that are weakened by women present in the workplace and especially when women advance to managerial positions of power (Berdahl, Reference Berdahl2007). Feminist scholars thus suggest that women, more than men, are likely to be sexually harassed at the workplace, regardless of their position. Data from the EEOC support this claim, showing that women file 83.5 percent of sexual harassment charges and are more likely to report sexual harassment when they work in male-dominated industries. Approximately 28 percent of women working in male-dominated industries reporting they had personally experienced sexual harassment at work compared to 20 percent of women in female-dominated industries (Parker, Reference Parker2018).
Many organizations are well aware of the threats sexual harassment at work presents to their employees and the organization (e.g., liability). Organizations, therefore, use different training modules and policies that are meant to educate their workforce and prevent sexual harassment from occurring. At the same time, most organizations are also aware of the inevitability of romantic relationships at work, the negative perceptions of hierarchical romantic relationships at work, and the potential for consensual romantic relationships to develop to sexual harassment. As a result, many organizations have policies and guidance concerning romantic relationships at work, which we discuss in the next section.
Organizational Policies about Romantic Relationships at Work
What do Jeff Zucker (former CNN president), Steve Easterbrook (former McDonald’s CEO), Katie Hill (former US representative for California’s 25th congressional district), Brian Krzanich (former Intel CEO), Darren Houston (former Priceline CEO), and Brian Dunn (former Best Buy CEO) have in common? They lost their jobs, and many of them, their careers, because they were engaged in a romantic relationship at work.
Being aware of the inevitability of romantic relationships at work, as well as the ethical and legal issues they present, organizations devise different policies that put formal structure around romantic relationships at work, aiming to prevent abuse of power, favoritism, discrimination, and sexual harassment. At the same time, organizations also train their employees and supervisors about the importance of harassment-free work environment (Nagele-Piazza, Reference Nagele-Piazza2018). Still, because of the potential for a romantic relationship at work to transform to a case of sexual harassment, organizations apply a wide spectrum of policies, ranging from a complete ban on relationships between a subordinate and any superior, to specific policies about dating and reporting.
Although no descriptive assessment of the frequency of policies regarding romantic relationships at work exists, some policies are more common than others. For example, many organizations mandate a formal disclosure of a romantic relationship to the human resource department (Cavico & Mujtaba, Reference Cavico and Mujtaba2021), assuming transparency would make favoritism and abuse of power less likely. Other common policies include clear guidelines regarding public display of affection within the workplace, guidelines regarding making advances at work, training about romantic relationships and sexual harassment, and clear policies surrounding relationships between a subordinate and a supervisor (Uzialko, Reference Uzialko2023). Overall, the policies seem to focus on greater transparency when two employees are involved in a romantic relationship. For example, in many organizations, all romantic relationships must be reported to human resources. These policies allow the organization to identify and prevent favoritism or abuse of power. Policies also have specific rules regarding banning of certain relationships and behaviors. For example, worker-manager romantic relationships or public display of affection are not allowed and may result in dismissal in order to avoid potential favoritism and abuse of power and maintain a comfortable work environment for other workers. In many organizations, policies exist to create a clear line between romantic relationships at work and sexual harassment. For example, many organizations offer training about romantic relationships at work and sexual harassment concurrently and have policies that also make this distinction. Google, Facebook, and Airbnb, for example, allow employees to ask another coworker out, but only once, to avoid claims of sexual harassment (MarketWatch, 2019). In addition, organizations often ask employees who are involved in a romantic relationship to sign a “consensual relationship agreement” often referred to as a “love contract” (Cavico & Mujtaba, Reference Cavico and Mujtaba2021), which specifies “dos” and “don’ts” at work as well as work expectations if the romantic relationship ends.
Work and Romantic Relationships Outside Work
As one of the main domains of activity in many people’s life, work has a significant impact on other life domains, including romantic relationships (Bianchi & Milkie, Reference Bianchi and Milkie2010; Perry-Jenkins & Gerstel, Reference Perry‐Jenkins and Gerstel2020; Voydanoff, Reference Voydanoff2004). Multiple studies have shown that work characteristics and attributes are related to the quality of romantic relationships both negatively and positively. For example, shift work and work overload are negatively related to romantic relationships quality (e.g., Crouter et al., Reference Crouter, Bumpus, Head and McHale2001; Maume & Sebatian, Reference Maume and Sebastian2012; Perry-Jenkins et al., Reference Perry-Jenkins, Goldberg, Pierce and Sayer2007; Presser, Reference Presser2000) whereas other facets of work, such as job satisfaction and income are positively related to romantic relationship quality and stability (Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Krull, Bradbury and Karney2017; Rogers & May, Reference Rogers and May2003; Whillans et al., Reference Whillans, Pow and Norton2018). It is also important to note that although we focus on spillover from work to romantic relationships as a unidirectional relationship, these relationships are likely to be mutual and flow between these two domains in both directions (Rogers & May, Reference Rogers and May2003; van Steenbergen et al., Reference Van Steenbergen, Kluwer and Karney2011).
How Does Work Impact Romantic Relationships?
In this section, we focus on three main areas in which work affects romantic relationships: choices about time allocation between the two domains and the ability to control time allocation, monetary and non-monetary resources obtained at work, and the spillover of affect from one’s work to one’s romantic relationship.
Time Allocation and the Ability to Control Time and Romantic Relationships
As a finite resource, the allocation of time is often perceived as a zero-sum game between work and other life domains, including romantic relationships. Many couples choose a gendered allocation of time to address the scarcity of time resources, with men, on average, allocating more time to paid work and women, on average, allocating more time to unpaid work – doing household chores and taking care of children (Bianchi & Raley, Reference Bianchi, Raley, Bianchi, Casper and King2006; Craig & Mullan, Reference Craig and Mullan2010). Still, because 46.8 percent of households in the United States are comprised of dual earners (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022), time allocation is an important issue in romantic relationships.
There is no clear research support for a direct relationship between time spent at work and the quality of romantic relationships, though indirect relationships have been shown in multiple studies. For example, time spent at work is related to other family outcomes such as work-family conflict (e.g., Adkins & Premeaux, Reference Adkins and Premeaux2012; Hill et al., Reference Hill, Erickson, Holmes and Ferris2010), which are in turn related to couple relationship quality (Fellows et al., Reference Fellows, Chiu, Hill and Hawkins2016), but the direct relationship between working hours and different indicators of the quality of romantic relationships is often null (e.g., Minnotte et al., Reference Minnotte, Minnotte and Bonstrom2015; Unger et al., Reference Unger, Sonnentag, Niessen and Kuonath2015). Researchers have tried to explain these null findings and concluded that the work time itself (number of hours people spend at work) is less important than the ability to control the allocation of this work time. Specifically, romantic relationships are affected by individuals’ ability to control different aspects of their work, including their work time, by having more autonomy and discretion as to when, where, and how to perform their work (Perry-Jenkins & Gerstel, Reference Perry‐Jenkins and Gerstel2020).
Control over work and time at work can take different forms. Researchers have defined control over work as the ability to determine, at least partly, how, when, and where work is performed. Control over work is an employee-driven job flexibility (Gerstel & Clawson, Reference Gerstel and Clawson2018), which is different from flexible work arrangements that are employer-driven and controlled (Gerstel & Clawson, Reference Gerstel and Clawson2018). When considering control over work time as an antecedent of the quality of romantic relationships, a clearer relationship emerges. For example, employees who work non-standard schedules like night and rotating shifts, have lower quality romantic relationships (Crouter et al., Reference Crouter, Bumpus, Head and McHale2001; Maume & Sebatian, Reference Maume and Sebastian2012; Perry-Jenkins et al., Reference Perry-Jenkins, Goldberg, Pierce and Sayer2007; Presser, Reference Presser2000). Similarly, more subjective measures of time spent at work such as work overload and overwork (e.g., Kulik & Liberman, Reference Kulik and Liberman2022; Shafer et al., Reference Shafer, Kelly, Buxton and Berkman2018) as well as ability to take longer breaks from work when needed, for example, for a birth of child (Kramer et al., Reference Kramer, Bae, Huh and Pak2019; Petts & Knoester, Reference Petts and Knoester2020), were also shown to be related to the quality of romantic relationships.
Monetary and Non-monetary Resources Generated by Work and Romantic Relationships
Work requires the investment of many resources by individuals. Individuals invest time, physical, cognitive, and emotional effort at work that might come at the expense of romantic relationships that also require investment of similar resources. Likewise, work might also provide individuals with rewards that may enhance romantic relationships. For example, monetary rewards from work can be used to “buy time” for investment in romantic relationships (e.g., buying prepared food or cleaning services) and allow leisure activities that nurture romantic relationships and create shared experiences that promote couple functioning (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Zabriskie and Hill2006; Shahvali et al., Reference Shahvali, Kerstetter and Townsend2021). In addition to direct monetary rewards, work can also provide non-monetary rewards that may positively affect romantic relationships (Greenhaus & Powell, Reference Greenhaus and Powell2006). For example, individuals may acquire skills at work that can be used to enhance romantic relationships (e.g., time management skills, conflict resolution techniques).
Research on the association between income and romantic relationship quality supports the notion that money does not buy higher quality romantic relationships, but it does help (Dakin & Wampler, Reference Dakin and Wampler2008). Monetary rewards from work and the use into which couples put them, have been shown to relate positively to marital and relationship satisfaction, and negatively to relationship stress, and separation. For example, when couples can make time-saving purchases, such as household services (e.g., housecleaning services) they have higher relationship satisfaction and are able to spend more quality time together (Whillans et al., Reference Whillans, Pow and Norton2018) and create shared experiences that improve couple’s functioning (Shahvali et al., Reference Shahvali, Kerstetter and Townsend2021). Greater consumption of goods is also related to greater satisfaction (Headey et al., Reference Headey, Muffels and Wooden2008). On the flip side, lack of financial resources is related to negative outcomes in romantic relationships. The relationship between lack of financial resources and negative outcomes in romantic relationship is consistent with Conger’s Family Stress model (Conger & Conger, Reference Conger and Conger2002). It suggests that couples who face greater economic pressure and strain suffer from higher levels of stress and pressure, which create more psychological distress. With higher psychological distress, couples are more likely to experience greater marital conflict and marital distress (e.g., Conger et al., Reference Conger, Rueter and Elder1999; Falconier & Epstein, Reference Falconier and Epstein2010; Randall et al., Reference Randall, Totenhagen, Walsh, Adams and Tao2017), though gender differences exist in those relationships. Finally, there is also empirical evidence showing that employment and macro-economic conditions are related to relationship formation and separation, with unemployment rate and economic downturns being negatively related to both the marriage rate (González-Val & Marcén, Reference González-Val and Marcén2018; Schneider & Hastings, Reference Schneider and Hastings2015) and the divorce rate (Amato & Beattie, Reference Amato and Beattie2011; Killewald, Reference Killewald2016; Poortman, Reference Poortman2005).
Non-monetary aspects of work are also related to the quality of romantic relationships. For example, work-family enrichment, the extent to which experiences in the work role improve the quality of the family role and performance in that role (Greenhaus & Powell, Reference Greenhaus and Powell2006) has been shown to increase marital satisfaction of both the focal individual and their partner (Gopalan et al., Reference Gopalan, Grzywacz and Cui2018; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Ngo and Cheung2016; van Steenbergen et al., Reference van Steenbergen, Kluwer and Karney2014) as well as positively relate to positive marital behaviors, such as making enjoyable interactions and engaging friends and family in activities (van Steenbergen et al., Reference van Steenbergen, Kluwer and Karney2014).
Spillover of Affect from Work to Romantic Relationships
The spillover of affect from work to family life and romantic relationships has long been recognized in the literature (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, Reference Bronfenbrenner and Crouter1982; Small & Riley, Reference Small and Riley1990). An underlying assumption in this line of research is that the boundaries between work and life outside work are permeable and therefore affect that is generated in one domain spills over to other domains. Research provides strong support for the permeability of these boundaries. The growing blur between boundaries as technology allows individuals to work anytime and anywhere, including when they spend time with their romantic partners (Hertlein, Reference Hertlein2012; Kramer & Kramer, Reference Kramer and Kramer2021; McDaniel & Coyne, Reference McDaniel and Coyne2016; Pak et al., Reference Pak, Kramer, Lee and Kim2022; Paulin et al., Reference Paulin, Lachance-Grzela and McGee2017). Although we recognize that affect spillover can also occur from romantic relationships to the work domain (Rogers & May, Reference Rogers and May2003), in this chapter we focus on spillover of affect from work to the romantic relationship.
In recent years, studies using various designs, most prominently experience sampling methods (ESM), have revealed how affective states at work and romantic relationships are interrelated. For example, Judge and colleagues (Reference Judge, Ilies and Scott2006) showed that work-family conflict led to feelings of guilt and hostility that had a negative relationship with marital satisfaction. Multiple studies have shown that both positive and negative momentary moods spill over from work to romantic relationships (e.g., Heller & Watson, Reference Heller and Watson2005; Jones & Fletcher, Reference Jones and Fletcher1996; Song et al., Reference Song, Foo and Uy2008). Other studies have shown that stress, overload, expectation of stigma (e.g., for being part of the LGBTQ community), and incivility at work are negatively related to emotional and behavioral reactions that are at the core of romantic relationships (e.g., overt expressions of anger, disregard of a partner’s needs, lower affection and disclosure, social undermining of the partner, and overall relationship satisfaction and quality; Dispenza, Reference Dispenza2015; King et al., Reference King, Wickrama, O’Neal and Lorenz2018; Meier & Cho, Reference Meier and Cho2019; Sears et al., Reference Sears, Repetti, Robles and Reynolds2016). Furthermore, this spillover has been shown to crossover to the partner and influence their affective state and behaviors as well (Sears et al., Reference Sears, Repetti, Robles and Reynolds2016; Song et al., Reference Song, Foo and Uy2008). More recently, a growing area of research examines how the diffusion of work to the relationship domain using internet connected devices (ICTs) affects romantic relationships (e.g., Aljasir, Reference Aljasir2022; Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Thompson, Crawford, Boswell and Whitten2018; McDaniel et al., Reference McDaniel, Galovan, Cravens and Drouin2018, Reference McDaniel, Galovan and Drouin2021). This is a growing area of research that becomes increasingly important as the development of ICTs and their use by individuals outside work makes the boundaries between work and romantic relationships more blurred than ever and with it, the potential for greater interference of work in romantic relationships.
Romantics Relationship from an Economic Perspective
In the 1960s, economists increasingly started using economic theory to explain behavior outside the traditional boundaries of monetary markets (Becker, Reference Becker1973). Building on social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, Reference Thibaut and Kelley1959), they started analyzing families using an economic analysis. Understanding families became one of the most prominent areas to which economists applied their theoretical and analytical tools, providing a different perspective on choices made by individuals regarding mate selection, marriages, births, divorce, division of household labor, among others (Becker, Reference Becker1991). Broadly speaking, two main principles guided this economic analysis. First, individuals’ decisions follow the principles of rational choice outside monetary markets just as they guide decisions and choices in monetary markets. Second, the principles of supply and demand also operate in a similar way outside monetary markets. Applying these economic principles to marriages, Becker (Reference Becker1973) suggested a framework of “marriage markets” in which individuals decide to marry when the utility they expect from it exceeds the utility of remaining single, while taking into account the potential supply of relevant matches. Similarly, divorce decisions are also a result of a utility analysis – when the utility of becoming single exceeds the expected losses of a divorce, individuals would make a separation decision.
Over time, Becker’s analysis of marriage markets was criticized for oversimplifying the decision to marry or separate. Key weaknesses of Becker’s model include the assumptions that people make purely rational choices (Tversky & Kahneman, Reference Tversky and Kahneman1986), that all post-marriage decisions are determined, like in monetary markets, by binding agreements in the marriage market (Pollak, Reference Pollak2019), that couples pool their resources to maximize family-level utility (Lundberg et al., Reference Lundberg, Pollak and Wales1997), that paid and unpaid work provide the same bargaining power (Anderson & Eswaran, Reference Anderson and Eswaran2009), and that gender (and race) have no role in marriage markets decisions (Hitsch et al., Reference Hitsch, Hortaçsu and Ariely2010; Lundberg & Pollak, Reference Lundberg and Pollak2015). With the understanding of the limitations and critique of economic approaches, we continue with an introduction to the economic perspective on romantic relationships.
An Economic Perspective on Romantic Relationships
At its core, an economic perspective on romantic relationships does not consider “romance” as relevant for the formation and maintenance of romantic relationships. Dating, marriage, and divorce are all a result of maximizing the individual utility given the supply of desirable matches and the demand by other actors in the market. Any choices are a result of rational decisions taking into account utility maximization, supply, and demand. A key assumption is that men and women prefer marrying people who are similar to them on social, demographic, and economic characteristics (Qian & Lichter, Reference Qian and Lichter2018). Further, an economic approach often tries to understand romantic relationships by observing long-term trends in marriage and divorce like age of first marriage, marriage, and divorce rates, similarities between couples across a host of demographic characteristics and human capital, and the importance of social class in romantic relationships. As such, this approach does not pay any attention to individual level variables that go beyond demographics characteristics like personality, attachment style, and other intra-individual and couple-level variables, such as marital conflict and the quality of communication between couples.
A common area of research that is analyzed using economic principles concerns the decrease in marriage rates since the 1950s, especially among low-income communities (Lundberg & Pollak, Reference Lundberg and Pollak2015). Economists, sociologists, and demographers that use an economic perspective suggest that one of the reasons for the decline in marriage rate is change in the supply of suitable matches across different socioeconomic groups. For example, the increased education of women relative to men, especially in low-income communities, reduces the supply of good matches for low-income women, making it less likely for them to get married because the utility that they can gain by marrying a man with lower education is insufficient relative to the cost of marriage (e.g., Gibson-Davis et al., Reference Gibson‐Davis, Edin and McLanahan2005). Supply and demand also play a role in romantic relationships among high earners. Due to structural inequality, men are much more likely to be top earners than women. Men desire a “good match” – a professional, highly educated woman – but the supply of these women is low. Therefore, top-earner women can be more selective in their choice of marriage and find a “better” partner, for example, one that will be more egalitarian when it comes to sharing household chores and childcare (Carbone & Cahn, Reference Carbone and Cahn2014). Other examples of the importance of supply and demand in romantic relationship markets is demonstrated by studies showing that when college women account for a higher proportion of a college campus, they go on fewer traditional dates, are less likely to have boyfriends, and are more likely to have casual sex (Uecker & Regnerus Reference Uecker and Regnerus2010); that men are likely to marry sooner and women are less likely to work when the supply of men is greater than women when migration flows occur (Angrist, Reference Angrist2002); that following wars, when the supply of men is low, men are less likely to settle for lower quality matches (Abramitzky et al., Reference Abramitzky, Boustan and Eriksson2014); and, that Chinese parents accumulate more savings when there is greater competition for women (less women relative to men) in marriage markets (Wei & Zhang, Reference Wei and Zhang2011).
In general, economic approaches assign value to desired characteristics in the marriage market and explain romantic relationships, or matches, by the value of the desired characteristics each partner brings to the marriage. For example, because “single” has a higher value than “divorced” in the marriage market (Qian & Lichter, Reference Qian and Lichter2018), previously married people are at a disadvantage relative to never-married people, have less supply of potential matches, and are therefore less likely to get married relative to singles. Furthermore, when divorced people remarry, they are likely to settle for a lower quality match (Qian & Lichter, Reference Qian and Lichter2018), casting a wider net and having more heterogenous pairings. For example, people who remarry are more likely to marry a person that is less educated than they are, compared to people who are first married. Overall, by using insights from economics such as supply and demand, rational choice, and maximization of utility, researchers provide a different perspective on the formation and dissolution of romantic relationships. Treating romantic relationships as economic markets takes a macro perspective on trends in marriage, divorce, and fertility, and complements the more micro perspectives that are better suited for understanding the intra-couple complexities and intricacies of romantic relationships.
Summary
Romantic relationships are important to most individuals. So is their work and career. It is no wonder that these two important domains are therefore influenced by each other. In this chapter, we provided a review of how workplaces perceive romantic relationship as unavoidable and potentially harmful and their attempt to control romantic relationship at work, how work and romantic relationships interact to affect each other, and an economic perspective of romantic relationship as an exchange relationship motivated by utility maximization.
It is important to note that although research on the intersection of romantic relationships and work is growing, some areas of research require more attention. For example, minorities in the workplace, and specifically sexual minorities, face additional constraints when attempting to reconcile work and romantic relationship (e.g., Holman et al., Reference Holman, Ogolsky and Oswald2022; Stavrou & Ierodiakonou, Reference Stavrou and Ierodiakonou2018). Another topic that requires additional attention is the development of relationship between work and romantic relationships over the life course. It is not clear if associations observed between work and romantic relationships in emerging adults (e.g., Luyckx et al., Reference Luyckx, Seiffge-Krenke, Schwartz, Crocetti and Klimstra2014) persist over the life course, or whether, for example, one domain is more dominant at a younger age whereas another takes priority at an older age.
Romantic relationships and work are often portrayed as competing with one another (Fellows et al., Reference Fellows, Chiu, Hill and Hawkins2016). Such perspective views romantic relationships and work as competing for the same resources: participation and investment in one domain is depleting resources (time, energy, affect) that are not available anymore for investment in the other domain. This zero-sum game view is common when using economics perspectives of romantic relationships and work that applies analytical tools that focus on competing demands and competition for limited and finite resources. However, romantic relationships and work can also enhance and strengthen one another (e.g., Gareis et al., Reference Gareis, Barnett, Ertel and Berkman2009), and more research is needed to further understand how these two important domains in people’s life can be fulfilled.
Open access