The Dual-Career Commuter Family:
A Lifestyle on the Move
Elaine A. Anderson
Jane W. Spruill
SUMMARY. In the last 15 years, we have observed women entering
the labor force in increasing numbers. This change has forced some
families to adopt a commuting relationship where the spouses maintain separate residences in different cities and reunite regularly.
Although more families are attempting this alternative, relatively
little research has examined this family pattern. This study assesses
role strain, division of labor, and decision making for dual-career
commuter couples. Thirty-nine couples were surveyed. The results
suggest a fairly traditional division of household labor, moderate
levels of stress, and an incomplete decision-making process for this
nontraditional lifestyle.
The last two decades have seen the entry of women into the labor
force introduce dramatic familial and community change. With the
number of dual-earner families (e.g., married couples where both
husband and wife were earners at sometime during the year) having
Elaine A. Anderson is Associate Professor, Department of Family and Community Development, and Jane W. Spruill is a Doctoral candidate, Department of
Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
Support for computer analysis is acknowledged to The University of Maryland
Computer Center. This research was supported in part by a Graduate Research
Board Grant, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: ‘‘The Dual-Career Commuter Family: A Lifestyle on the Move.’’
Anderson, Elaine A., and Jane W. Spruill. Co-published simultaneously in Marriage & Family Review
(The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 19, No. 1/2, 1993, pp. 131-147; and: Families on the Move: Migration,
Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility (ed: Barbara H. Settles, Daniel E. Hanks III, and Marvin B.
Sussman) The Haworth Press, Inc., 1993, pp. 131-147. Multiple copies of this article/chapter may be
purchased from The Haworth Document Delivery Center [1-800-3-HAWORTH; 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
(EST)].
E 1993 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
131
132
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
increased by 25 percent in the last decade (Hayghe, 1981) and the
number of dual-career families also increasing (U.S. Department of
Labor Statistics, 1987), there are new demands on the family to
integrate work and family needs. Dual-career families (Rapoport &
Rapoport, 1971) are those where both heads of the household pursue careers, and their work requires a high degree of commitment
and special training, with a continuous developmental character
involving increasing degrees of responsibility. This work type is in
contrast to the dual-job (blue collar) family where both husband and
wife are wage earners, but at a job done primarily for the purpose of
obtaining money and some personal satisfaction. This job doesn’t
require the amount of training or commitment of time that is
expected of a career. One might hold different types of jobs during
one’s lifetime (Scanzoni, 1980).
Although dual-job families outnumber dual-career families, the
number of dual-career families is likely to increase as educational
and employment opportunities are made available to women
(Hicks, Hansen, & Christie, 1983). Since the dual-career form seeks
to integrate the demands of two full-time careers with family
responsibilities, a challenge is presented to the dual-career family
that may produce stress and conflict. Farris (1978) notes that the
problem of pursuing two careers in the same geographic area is one
often encountered by dual-career couples. The conventional solution is usually one in which one or both spouses take less desirable
jobs, or one spouse does not work at all. In most cases, the wife
compromises (Duncan & Perrucci, 1976; Spitze, 1986), thus her
career suffers. To resolve this conflict, some dual-career couples
have adopted a commuting lifestyle where spouses maintain separate residences in two geographic areas, being apart from each other
at least three nights a week (Gerstel & Gross, 1982).
Researchers (Kirschner & Walum, 1978, Gerstel & Gross, 1982)
have acknowledged that living apart is not unique to dual-career
couples. Certain occupations such as politicians, executives, or
salesmen, as well as certain circumstances (e.g., war, immigration,
imprisonment, and seasonal work) require marital separation. However, historically it is the male who has left the family for a period
of time. However, corporate businesses have stated that currently
between 8 to 10 percent of their job transfers are offered to women.
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
133
Hence, increasing the likelihood of women’s mobility from the
family for work related reasons.
The present study focuses on the commuter lifestyle as a work
solution for dual-career families. Given that these commuter families clearly will be faced with the demands of integrating work and
family life, the study examines: (a) preliminary data on the division
of labor or sharing of family tasks; (b) role strain; and (c) decision
questions used to reach the decision whether or not to enter into a
long-distance commute. This paper assesses the commuter relationship and the strains and challenges mobility produces. In addition,
coping strategies are also suggested.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Characteristics of Commuter Marriages
The number used in previous research on commuter marriages
ranged from 10 to 30 couples (Farris, 1978; Gerstel, 1978; Gross,
1980). Recognizing that these were relatively small sample sizes,
the following profile of commuters is suggested: (1) a majority of
these spouses were well-educated, over 90% have completed at
least some graduate work; (2) almost all were professionals or
executives with a high proportion in academics; (3) the median
family income was between $30,000 and $40,000; and (4) the
familial characteristics of these couples included a mean age of
mid-to-late thirties with a range of 25-65, 40 to 50% had children,
and more than half had been married for nine years or longer.
The couples’ commuting characteristics reflected much more
variation. The period of time couples had maintained separate residences ranged from three months to 14 years. Spouses traveled
from a range of 40 to 2700 miles and reunited as often as every
weekend to only a few days each month (Gerstel & Gross, 1982).
These characteristics provide the reader with a brief glimpse at the
type of commuter couple to be discussed in this paper.
Division of Labor
Dual-career couples confront the day to day challenge of managing family tasks. Ideally the division of labor between the spouses
134
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
would be equal, however, the ideal state of an equal division of
labor is seldom achieved (Hester & Dickerson, 1981). Although
there are conflicting results pertaining to husbands assuming more
family work roles when their wives are employed, Pleck (1977)
points out that fully employed men still do only about one-third of
the family work that fully employed women undertake. Even
though employment status has a significant effect on family work,
gender seems to have a stronger effect.
It would appear that commuter couples would be similar on
sharing of family tasks to other dual-career couples studied. They
too, might experience high levels of role strain when attempting to
integrate family and work roles. However, Farris (1978) found that
in commuter couples compartmentalization of work and home lives
existed and was acknowledged by the spouses as a benefit of their
lifestyle. While the commuter was away from home, total concentration on work could occur. The weekends were devoted to
family oriented activities. This separation of commuter work and
family tasks is in contrast to most dual-career couples who must
integrate roles on a daily basis.
Farris (1978) and Gerstel (1978) suggest that commuter couples
become less traditional in the division of labor. However, Farris
(1978) indicates that even though couples shared a lot of household
responsibilities, the wifes’ weekend was often spent in doing household work. She also found that both spouses recognized the wife/
mother did not have exclusive responsibility for domestic and childcare tasks, therefore the spouses of the commuting wives readily
assumed these tasks. Gerstel and Gross (1982) consider commuting
as an equalizing force in the domestic division of labor. They found
that husbands and wives gained competence in those tasks traditionally gender-linked. As a result, a new sense of effectiveness is
achieved in the commuter marriage.
Stress in the Dual-Career Family
Skinner (1980) classifies the sources of stress in the dual-career
couple into internal and external types of strains. The former, for
example, deals with balancing career and family life and finding
satisfactory child care arrangements. Whereas the latter includes the
incongruity between the dual-career lifestyle and traditional norms
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
135
and the occupational pressures for mobility. In order to integrate the
internal and external types of strain, Bohen and Viveros-Long’s
(1981) definition of stress can be utilized. By combining Pearlin
and Bronfenbrenner’s dimension of stress, stress is defined as ‘‘the
experience of discomfort, pressure, tension, or frustration that may
arise as people function in both their jobs and family worlds’’
(Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981, p. 70). They further categorized
stress into role strain and family management and defined role
strain as consisting of ‘‘worries people may have about whether
they adequately accomplish everything they feel obligated to do in
both work and family arenas’’ (p. 71).
To understand the stress that occurs in the dual-career family, it is
important to examine the socialization of the individuals involved
and their role expectations. Gross (1980) found that commuter couples use the traditional role relationship as a standard to which they
compare their relationship. Orton and Crossman (1988) suggest that
if couples use traditional role models, then it is likely that society
will too. Society may perceive that the couple’s motivation to commute stems from desiring marital freedom instead of pursuing
career development. Kirschner and Walum (1978) found that stress
was experienced by the commuting couple when their peers
assumed the commuter arrangement was the initial step toward
divorce. As a result of this disparity between traditional and nontraditional roles, stress may be experienced.
In the couples that were interviewed by Gerstel (1978) and Gross
(1980), the commuting arrangement was more stressful if they had
children, if they had a longer distance to travel, and if they spent
more time apart. Older couples, married longer, with at least one
spouse’s career well-established found the separation less stressful
than younger couples who were contending with their new careers
and marital and family relationships.
Decision-Making Issues
Because dual-career couples are becoming more common in frequency, it seems logical to suggest that more of these families will
be faced with difficult decisions about job acceptance and location
for both the female and male. The decision whether or not to enter
into a commuter relationship increasingly will confront dual-career
136
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
couples. Such a decision, given its novelty and newness in character, will be a challenge as well as a potential source of conflict and
stress for dual-career couples. Therefore, it seems to be imperative
to know more about this issue of decision making.
Good decision making in families essentially performs two functions: (1) stabilizes and maintains the family’s most important
views, and (2) brings about nondisruptive change (Paolucci, Hall, &
Axinn, 1977). Decisions can either further stabilize a family and
provide security or cause trauma and uncertainty. Systematically
made decisions will allow the family to adapt to change and make
transitions in their lives more smoothly, allowing for individual
growth and development. In contrast, many people do not carefully
consider their decision making; often their decisions are made haphazardly or really not at all. As Danish and D’Augelli (1983) stated,
carefully planned decision making may require a totally new
approach for some people. This new approach includes considering
all the components of the decision, their importance, and any impediments to making the decision.
To date, little is known about the decision-making process of
commuter couples. Models of good decision making have been
suggested, but research has not explored if these models are implemented by couples in their decision-making process. Such initial
questions to answer concerning this process are: (1) who initiated
the idea of commuting; (2) what alternatives were considered as
options in this decision process; (3) from whom and what information was collected prior to making a decision; (4) how was the
information evaluated; (5) what was the reaction to the decision and
to the implementation of the decision, and finally; (6) what re-evaluation process was used to re-clarify the appropriateness of the
decision.
The answers to these questions would be useful information for
couples to have who are considering such a paramount decision.
Likewise, developing coping strategies for this alternative lifestyle
could be enhanced from this information. Perhaps couples who
follow a specific decision-making process experience less stress
and role strain than those who enter this arrangement having given
less forethought to the decision impact. In addition, such variables
as stage of the family life cycle, division of labor, length of com-
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
137
mute, length of time separated, stage of career development, commitment to one career, support networks, and individual personality
factors may also affect the implementation and outcome from this
decision.
In addition to answering the aforementioned questions about the
decision process, in this paper will be discussed the types of household tasks for which the couples perceived the male and female had
major responsibility, and those job and family issues from which
the couples reported experiencing stress and role strain. Hopefully
these data will be useful in the future development of coping strategies for this unique and mobile lifestyle.
CURRENT STUDY
Sample
The number in this study is 39 couples. These couples were
located geographically throughout the United States. To qualify as a
respondent, couples either had to have been commuting for at least
three months at the time of data collection, or to have commuted for
at least three months within the previous two years. They also had
to have been living in the same separate residences at least three
days per week. Therefore, traveling salesmen did not qualify for
this study because they were not always living in the same separate
residences each week.
The following is the demographic profile developed from this
sample. Familial characteristics of these couples included: a median
age of 35, with 15% (n = 11) younger than 30 and 13% (n = 10) 50
or older; the average number of years married was 10 years and
eight months; 44% (n = 17) cohabited with their spouse anywhere
from three months to four years prior to their marriage; 49% (n = 19)
had children, and of those with children, 58% (n = 11) of the
mothers primarily lived with the children; 21% (n = 4) of the fathers
had the children living with them most of the time, and 21% (n = 4)
stated their children were living on their own; 84% of the couples
(n = 33) were Caucasian, 8% (n = 3) Black, and 8% (n = 3) other
races; the average education was some post-master’s training; and
the average individual income was $25,000, with the range includ-
138
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
ing 12% of the individuals (n = 9) below $10,000 and 12% (n = 9)
above $50,000.
The commuting characteristics reflected some variation in this
sample. The average time the couples had been commuting was
2.5 years, however 28% (n = 11) had maintained separate residences for a year or less in contrast to 15% (n = 6) who had been
commuting for 3 or more years. Spouses traveled anywhere from
70 miles one-way to as far as 5,000 miles, with the median distance being 390 miles or approximately 7 hours driving time each
way.
The couples were asked who does most of the commuting. Forty
seven percent (n = 18) said either the husband did all the commuting or traveled most frequently, whereas 29% (n = 11) of the couples
said the woman was the predominant traveler. One-quarter (n = 10)
reported splitting the commuting equally. The factors influencing
their decision as to which spouse would commute included flexibility of time, one home viewed as home base, presence of friends,
children at home, and community commitments (listed in order of
frequency).
Almost half (n = 19) of the couples were seeing each other weekly, however 36% (n =14) saw each other once a month or less. The
quality of time they spent together was rated as very satisfactory for
62% (n = 24), somewhat satisfactory for 32% (n = 12) and only 6%
(n = 2) said their quality of time together was unsatisfactory.
Data Collection
A questionnaire was mailed to the couple with a self addressed
stamped envelope. Each couple jointly completed the questionnaire. Certain select items such as education, age, and race each
spouse responded to independently. A follow-up contact was made
after two weeks, and a second follow-up was made again one week
later.
The primary method of obtaining participants was through advertisements in several regional and national professional newsletters,
and by using a nonrandomized snowball (referral) sampling technique. Eighty-two couples received the survey. Thirty-nine couples
completed the survey and met the criteria to quality as a commuter
couple. Six couples were disqualified because they didn’t qualify as
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
139
a commuter couple, and nine couples were not included in this
analysis because only one of the spouses responded to the survey.
The study had a couples response rate of 53%.
Measurement
The instruments germane to the study are discussed below. The
first section of the questionnaire contained demographic information about the couple. The second section of the questionnaire asked
specific questions about the arrangement of their commute such as
how they traveled, who did the traveling, what influenced their
decision as to who travels, and how often they saw each other. The
specific decision-making questions were developed for this study.
Division of family tasks was measured by a 26 item scale. Husbands and wives were asked to indicate how much responsibility
they took for the accomplishment of tasks associated with family
management including meal preparation, household maintenance
and repair, and childcare. The sum score reflects a point on a continuum from tasks not shared to tasks equally shared. The scale was an
adaptation of a 22 item scale based on the Regional Time Studies
(Bird, Bird, & Scruggs, 1984). The original 22 item scale was tested
for reliability using a factor analysis to construct the 22 factors. An
additional four items were added by the researchers to assess additional daily family tasks.
Couples were asked to circle the description which best describes
how they perceived their family to divide household tasks. If a third
party did the task they were asked to circle the description for who
arranged for that task to be done and to indicate that the task was
performed by a third party. Respondents could also indicate if the
task was not applicable. The following scores were assigned to each
description: (1) wife only, (2) wife more, (3) wife and husband
about the same, (4) husband more than wife, and (5) husband only.
The Job-Family Role Strain Scale was developed by the Family
Impact Seminar (Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981) following five of
Komarovsky’s six modes of role strain. Mirroring the procedure used
by the Family Impact Seminar, stress was analyzed as it related to
internalized values and emotions as well as feelings of contentment,
fulfillment, self-respect, and the balancing of job and family obligations. The lower the sum score, the greater the amount of job-family
140
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
role strain. On a scale of one to five, respondents were asked to
indicate how often they felt the emotion expressed in a series of
statements. On a scale of one to five, answers were (1) always,
(2) most of the time, (3) some of the time, (4) rarely, and (5) never.
Respondents could also indicate if the statement was not applicable.
RESULTS
The results presented in this chapter are the initial descriptive
analyses conducted with these data. The respondents were asked to
rate on 26 household tasks how they and their spouse divided
household responsibilities. It was hypothesized that these couples
who lead somewhat nontraditional lifestyles would be much less
traditional in their division of household labor. The initial frequency
data do not support this hypothesis. For most of the tasks typically
thought of as female tasks, the women in these commuter households have the most responsibility. These tasks include planning
menus, preparing meals, clothes shopping, doing laundry, vacuuming, cleaning baths, picking up clutter, chauffeuring children, attending functions with the children, and the daily care of the children and the pets. The males in these commuter families have the
most responsibility for traditional male tasks such as aftermeal
cleanup, repair and maintenance of the house, gardening, lawn
mowing, washing cars, minor repairs, repair and maintenance of
cars, payment of bills, and planning investments.
In addition, there are several tasks which are reported to be
divided equally between the husband and wife by many of the
couples. These tasks are shopping for food, general cleaning, coordinating the family daily activity, planning family recreation and
organizing their entertainment activities. However, for every one of
these tasks reported to be shared by many couples, if they do not
report equity of labor, the wife has the major responsibility.
The amount of job and family role strain these couples are experiencing also was assessed. On many of the items there seems to be
fairly equal numbers who don’t feel stress and who indicate they are
stressed. Several examples of the strain include 26% (n = 10) who
feel most of the time their job is keeping them away from their
family too much, 31% (n = 12) who feel they have more to do than
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
141
they comfortably can handle most of the time, 44% (n = 17) who
rarely if ever feel they have a good balance between their job and
family time, and 31% (n = 12) who most of the time wish they have
more time to do things for their family. However, for each of the
above issues where strain is acknowledged, an equal number do not
or rarely report feeling any role strain.
Several role strain items produce a very positive response from
many of the couples. Over half (n = 20) of the respondents report
that usually their time off from work matches the schedules of their
family quite well, they feel they do have enough time for themselves, they rarely worry about others at work thinking their family
interferes with their job or worry whether or not they should work
less and spend more time with their children, and rarely do they
worry about how their kids are while they are working.
Several questions are asked in an attempt to begin to identify
what factors may help some couples adjust to the commute, and
what information seems to be used in making the decision to commute. Surprisingly 44% (n = 17) of the couples report they didn’t
know any other commuter couples prior to their decision to commute to whom they can turn and discuss their experiences. Of those
who know other commuter couples, 75% (n = 29) report they never
or only briefly discuss their commuter lifestyle with them. When
asked how much of a support network they perceive to be present
for the person commuting away from the primary residence, as
many as 59% (n = 23) report none or not much of any network.
When asked who brings up the idea of their commuting, 49% (n = 19)
report wife, 24% (n = 9) husband, 19% (n = 7) both equally, and 8%
(n = 3) indicate an employer is the first to mention the option of
commuting.
There were six major alternatives or options considered by these
couples in their decision-making process. Fifteen percent (n = 6) of
the couples feel they didn’t consider any other alternative other than
to commute. Most of the couples consider only one additional alternative to commuting. The alternatives in order of frequency are
49% (n = 19) who consider one spouse changing his or her career or
taking a lower status job, 38% (n = 15) who think about keeping
things as they currently are and neither spouse changing their job,
28% (n = 11) who consider one spouse quitting work completely,
142
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
10% (n = 4) who think about both spouses getting new jobs and
relocating to a third location, 10% (n = 4) who decide to commute
knowing that there is a definite time limit when they can both be
back together, and 5% (n = 2) who consider termination of their
marriage.
The couples are also asked questions about the specific information they collect prior to making their final decision. Most couples
don’t discuss the decision issue with others prior to their final
decision. In fact, 38% (n = 15) of the couples say they don’t discuss
the issue with anyone other than their spouse or attempt to collect
any information about the commuter lifestyle from anyone. Typically, if a couple lists anyone besides their spouse whom they contact, it is only one other person. Thirty six percent (n = 14) report
they discuss the issue with friends, 31% (n = 12) talk with their
parents, 26% (n = 10) with their employer, 13% (n = 5) discuss the
possible move with their children, and 8% (n = 3) each talk with
siblings or an accountant.
After discussing the alternatives and information the couples
consider in their decision process they are asked about the decision
itself. How do they feel about their decision to commute? Whereas
62% (n = 24) say they and their spouse are in total agreement about
their decision, 26% (n = 10) say they are cooperatively still negotiating the next phase of their commuting lifestyle, and another 12%
(n = 5) of the couples are at all stages of disagreement over their
decision to entertain a commuter lifestyle. Forty percent (n = 16) are
satisfied with the decision, 46% (n = 18) resigned to the decision,
4% (n = 2) express resentment, and 10% (n = 4) report a mixture of
the three sentiments. Interestingly 58% (n = 23) report they have
had considerable difficulty making this decision, in contrast to 42%
(n = 16) who say they have had little or no difficulty with the
decision.
Finally the couples are asked if they make specific plans to
re-evaluate after a specific period of time their decision to commute. Two-thirds (n = 26) of the couples have not made plans to
re-evaluate their decision. Of those who do make plans, they identify specific time periods as their evaluation plan (e.g., at the end of
a yearly contract, after each semester, after retirement of one
spouse, or when both found jobs in the same area).
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
143
In conclusion, 74% (n = 29) are pleased they have decided to
commute. Over half (n = 21) feel the commute is very beneficial to
their career, and almost half (46%, n = 18) report the commute is
positive for the well-being of their family. Of those who end their
commuting, 46% (n = 18) of the wives move to the husbands’
location, 38% (n = 15) of the husbands move to live with their wife,
in 8% (n = 3) of the families both husband and wife move together
to a third location, and for 9% (n = 4) of the couples the commute
ends with a termination of the marriage.
DISCUSSION
The results of the preliminary data analysis for this study suggest
that these couples, similar to many dual-career couples (Leslie &
Anderson, 1988) are quite traditional in their division of family
tasks. Not only do the females typically do most of those household
tasks associated with wives, but in terms of number of tasks they
have more responsibility than their male counterparts. Although
males did have a sizeable list of tasks which were predominantly
their own, it is important to discuss the character of their tasks.
Aside from the task of after-meal cleanup, all of the major tasks
ascribed to the males are ones which must be attended to only
periodically, examples such as lawn mowing, payment of bills, and
washing cars. In contrast, most of the tasks ascribed to the female
are either daily or weekly responsibilities, examples are preparing
meals, daily care of children and pets, picking up clutter, and doing
laundry or vacuuming.
In terms of amount of time devoted to household labor, one
would observe that these commuter dual-career wives not only have
more tasks than their husbands, but their tasks are probably more
time-consuming and continuous than their spouses. These results
are surprising since it had been hypothesized that these couples
would be less traditional than other dual-career couples. Both Farris
(1978) and Gerstel (1978) have suggested that commuter couples
are less traditional in their division of labor, however these results
do not support their contention. In addition, the husband and wife
tasks seem to be quite gender-linked, also in contrast to Gerstel and
Gross (1982). These results are quite consistent with those reported
144
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
by Leslie and Anderson (1988) on other dual-career couples who
are not entertaining a mobile commuter lifestyle.
An example of this inequitable, gender-linked division of labor
was also represented in the qualitative data collected with this study.
One couple reported that the wife always prepared meals for the
family for the number of days she would be gone so they could
continue the ‘‘normalcy’’ of their daily lives. This woman we
should remember was a professional who commuted away from her
family, worked a 50 to 60 hour week, and then on Friday evening
flew home for the weekend in order to prepare her family for the
upcoming week when she would be gone again back to her job.
It is encouraging, yet surprising, to have so many of the couples
report little if any role strain present. This finding suggests the
family may have adapted and is coping with their lifestyle. Perhaps
these couples do not worry about what other people think about
their lifestyle choice. Thus, little conflict exists for these couples
between societal values and their personal values. One respondent
noted that commuting ‘‘requires a person who is internally controlled and not easily affected by societal reactions.’’ These couples
seem to be coping with the external strains identified by Skinner
(1980), namely the incongruity between the dual-career lifestyle,
traditional norms, and occupational pressures for mobility.
However, for those couples who did report stress, assessment
must be made of the differences between them and those couples
not experiencing role strain. For example, how might acceptance of
the decision to commute contribute to levels of role strain? This
sample was highly committed to their work and felt good about
their work performance. The existence of little reported role strain
may represent as Gerstel and Gross (1978) suggested that the commuter arrangement is the ‘‘best fit’’ for many dual-career couples.
Role strain may be reduced since commuting allows for segregation
of work and family roles while a marriage and career continue to
coexist. In contrast, dual-career couples living in one residence
have to integrate family and work roles on a daily basis, with little
opportunity to focus exclusively on either the work or the family
arena. The positive feelings about their work may permeate into the
commuter family setting, hence decreasing role strain and increasing acceptance of and adaptation to this mobile life situation.
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
145
Finally, these data suggest that this highly educated and sophisticated group of couples did not use a very systematic decision-making process. Few considered all of the alternatives in making their
decision and fewer still seemed to collect the information necessary
to make such a major lifestyle decision. Given that two-thirds of the
couples had made no plans to re-evaluate the effectiveness of their
implemented decision, it is probably not surprising that close to half
of the couples were feeling very satisfied with their decision to
commute.
Additional analyses need to examine the role strain and adjustment between those couples who used a systematic decision-making process and those who did not (Anderson, 1992). In addition,
such variables as exposure to other commuter couples, number of
previous experiences away from one’s spouse, ease with which one
spends time by oneself, the nature of one’s support network, and the
importance of the issue of commuting to the individual need to be
assessed. Becoming aware of these issues and reviewing them carefully in the decision-making process will certainly maximize a couples’ capacity to adjust and cope with this lifestyle.
It is important to remember the limitations of generalizability
inherent in a nonrandom group of married, middle-class, Caucasian
couples. However, given the changes in economic opportunities in
our society in recent years, this lifestyle may become an attractive
option, if not a necessity for other types of families. As more
middle-class families experience job lay-offs, furloughs, and simply
fewer work options, they may consider this lifestyle if even for a
temporary time period. In other words, the need for work may force
some families to begin commuting in order to survive.
CONCLUSION
There are many additional questions remaining to be answered;
nonetheless, an important glimpse into the world of commuter marriages is provided. Clearly these data suggest several factors that all
couples need to consider when making a decision to enter this
highly mobile lifestyle. It may be necessary for some couples to
seek professional clinical help in order to assess accurately these
issues. First, the couple must review their division of household
146
Families on the Move: Migration, Immigration, Emigration, and Mobility
labor. These data suggest that unless you have established a nontraditional division of labor prior to the commuting experience, you
probably will not reallocate the tasks once the commute begins.
This finding seems to be particularly important for women given
that they appear to take on the majority of the continuous time-consuming household tasks regardless of whether or not they are doing
the traveling.
Second, couples need to assess the stability of their marital relationship and how much others’ reactions concerning their lifestyle
choice may influence how positive they are about their life. Whereas half of the respondents felt this lifestyle afforded them the opportunity to balance their work and family demands, almost as many
reported they rarely had a good balance between their job and
family time. An assessment of the amount of time one has, needs,
and desires for work and family before entering a commuter lifestyle, as well as a realistic assessment of how those time demands
may change with a mobile lifestyle are important.
Third, it is important that in the process of making a decision
whether or not to enter into a commuter relationship for a potential
commuter family to talk with other families who have experienced
this lifestyle. The majority of the couples in this study had not
discussed this lifestyle with anyone who had any experiences with
such a lifestyle transition before beginning their commute. In order
to predict the challenges families will face from division of labor
and role strain, and to map out the best family functioning under
such a mobile lifestyle, familiarizing oneself with the experiences
of others who have commuted is imperative. Coping strategies as
mentioned above, along with possible others, need to be developed
to provide assistance to those families who are still pioneering this
alternative lifestyle into the 21st century.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. A. (1992). Decision-making style: Impact on satisfaction of the
commuter couples’ lifestyle. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 13(1),
1-21.
Bird, G. W., Bird, G. A., & Scruggs, M. (1984). Determinants of family task
sharing: A study of husbands and wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
46, 345-355.
Elaine A. Anderson and Jane W. Spruill
147
Bohen, H. H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life. Philadelphia: The Free Press.
Danish, S. J., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1983). Helping skills II: Life development
intervention. New York: Human Sciences.
Duncan, R. P., & Perrucci, C. (1976). Dual occupation families and migration.
American Sociological Review, 41, 252-261.
Farris, A. (1978). Commuting. In R. Rapoport & R. Rapoport (Eds.), Working
couples (pp. 100-107). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gerstel, N. (1978). Commuter marriage (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 2573A.
Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1982). Commuter marriages: A review. Marriage and
Family Review, 5(2), 71-93.
Gross, H. (1980). Dual career couples who live apart: Two types. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 42, 567-576.
Hayghe, H. (1981). Husbands and wives as earners: An analysis of family data.
Monthly Labor Review, 104, 45-52.
Hester, S., & Dickerson, K. (1981). Dual career families: The stress and the
rewards. Journal of Home Economics, 13, 29-34.
Hicks, M. W., Hansen, S. L., & Christie, L. (1983). Dual-career-work families. In
E. Macklin & R. Rubin (Eds.), Contemporary families and alternative lifestyles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kirschner, B., & Walum, L. (1978). Two-location families: Married singles. Alternative Lifestyles, 1, 513-525.
Leslie, L. A., & Anderson, E. A. (1988). Men’s and women’s participation in
domestic roles: Impact on quality of life and marital adjustment. Journal of
Family Psychology, 2, 212-226.
Orton, J., & Crossman, S. (1988). Long distance marriage (LDM): Cause of
marital disruption or a solution to unequal dual-career development? In D.
Gutknecht (Ed.), Family, self, and society. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Paolucci, B., Hall, O., & Axinn, N. (1977). Family decision making: An ecosystem approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Pleck, J. (1977). The work family role system. Social Problems, 24, 417-427.
Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R.N. (1971). Dual-Career Families. Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin.
Scanzoni, J. (1980). Contemporary marriage types: A research note. Journal of
Family Issues, 1(1), 125-140.
Skinner, D. (1980). Dual-career family stress and coping: A literature review.
Family Relations, 29, 473-480.
Spitze, G. (1986). Family migration largely unresponsive to wife’s employment
(across age groups). Sociology and Social Research, 70, 231-234.
U. S. Department of Labor Statistics. (1987). As reported by telephone conversation, March 1987.