Social contributions to meaning in life: the role of romantic relationship quality, parenting, and gender

The study examines how close social relationships contribute to meaning in life, defined as the extent to which individuals perceive purpose, coherence, and significance in their lives. Prior research highlights social connection and support as core sources of meaning, with familial relationships often cited as the most significant contributors. Romantic relationships are linked to greater meaning, yet few studies have tested whether relationship quality itself is distinctly associated with meaning, and even fewer have examined this beyond specific groups (e.g., first-time mothers). Parenthood can enhance meaning by increasing purpose and fulfillment, though parenting stress may reduce meaning, and effects may vary by gender. Evidence on gender differences is mixed: some suggest relationships contribute more to women’s meaning, while others find no moderation by gender. Moreover, little research has explored the combined influences of romantic relationship functioning and number of children. This study investigates: (Aim 1) whether higher romantic relationship quality is associated with greater meaning and whether this link is stronger for women than men; (Aim 2) whether having more children relates to higher meaning and whether this association differs by gender; and (exploratory Aim 3) whether relationship quality, number of children, and gender interact to predict meaning in life.

- Social connections are central to meaning in life; belonging and connectedness enhance meaning, while exclusion reduces it. Daily positive social events and higher-quality interactions relate to greater perceived purpose and meaning. - Familial relationships, especially romantic partnerships, are salient sources of meaning. Time with spouses, forgiveness in relationships, and relationship commitment relate to higher meaning and satisfaction. Some evidence (mostly among women or specific transitions) links marital quality to greater meaning. - Meaning in life can also predict relationship functioning (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, likelihood of marriage), indicating bidirectional links. - Parenthood often confers meaning via purpose and fulfillment from caregiving; parents report more frequent thoughts about meaning and derive meaning from time with children. However, parenting stress inversely relates to meaning, and additional children may reduce subjective well-being for women in some contexts. - Gender differences are inconsistent: some findings suggest stronger ties between relationships/family and meaning for women, whereas other studies show similar effects across genders or greater overall well-being benefits of parenting for fathers. - Interplay between romantic relationship functioning and parenthood’s contribution to meaning is underexplored; the addition of children may reorganize central sources of meaning and potentially alter the importance of romantic relationship quality.

Design and timing: Cross-sectional survey conducted December 11, 2020 to February 11, 2021 (approximately one year into COVID-19 pandemic) as part of a larger study of couples coping with COVID-19. Approved by the University of Southern California IRB. Recruitment via Prolific. Participants and sampling: 504 U.S.-based adults living with a romantic partner were recruited. Inclusion: age ≥18, residing in the U.S., cohabiting with a romantic partner. Exclusions for current analyses: failed ≥50% attention checks (n=9); identified outside woman/man categories due to small numbers (n=3); no longer living with/in relationship with partner (n=6); incomplete data (n=13). Final N=473 individuals (53.3% women; includes 100 couples), age 19–72 (M=34.5, SD=9.72). Racial/ethnic composition: 31.7% White, 22.4% Hispanic/Latino, 22.2% Asian, 20.7% Black, 3.0% multiracial. Most employed (87.5%); 67.9% BA or higher. Mean cohabitation 8.2 years (SD=7.6); 64.1% married; 4.4% of women and 4.5% of men in same-sex relationships. Measures: - Meaning in life: Six items capturing purpose, coherence, and significance (Martela & Steger’s trichotomy), one positive and one reverse-coded item per dimension; response scale 0 (Not at all) to 3 (A lot); summed score; reliability α=0.91 for both genders. - Relationship quality: Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; six items; five items 1–7 Likert, one item 1–10); summed; higher scores indicate better quality; α=0.96 (men), 0.97 (women). - Number of children: Open-ended household roster coded for number of children under 18 living in the home; grouped as 0, 1, >1. Distribution: 55.0% none, 20.5% one, 24.5% more than one; among parents, mean number 1.66 (SD=0.74), child ages 0–18 (M=8.8, SD=5.09). - Covariates: Age; race/ethnicity; religiosity (single item 0–6); general connectedness (single item 0–3: “How much have you been feeling connected to others?”). Analytic approach: Hierarchical linear mixed models (lme4 in R) to account for dyadic clustering (individuals nested within couple). Predictors grand mean-centered and standardized. White used as race/ethnicity reference group. Four models (all adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, religiosity, connectedness): 1) Main effects of relationship quality, number of children (0,1,>1), gender on meaning (tests HO1a, HO2a). 2) Interaction: relationship quality × gender (controlling for number of children and covariates; HO1b). 3) Interaction: number of children × gender (controlling for relationship quality and covariates; HO2b). 4) Exploratory three-way interaction: relationship quality × number of children × gender (HO3). Significant interactions decomposed with simple slope analyses. Reported marginal and conditional R²; intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Supplementary analyses tested moderation by race/ethnicity, education, and employment in key interactions.

- Descriptives and correlations: Men reported greater meaning, connectedness, and were older than women. Meaning positively correlated with relationship quality, number of children, religiosity, and connectedness for both genders; with age for women only. Relationship quality correlated with religiosity for men and with connectedness for both genders. Number of children correlated with religiosity and age for both genders, and with connectedness for women. Racial/ethnic group differences observed in meaning, relationship quality, number of children, connectedness, and religiosity; thus race/ethnicity included as covariate. - Aim 1 (relationship quality): Significant positive main effect of relationship quality on meaning (HO1a supported). Interaction with gender significant: association stronger for men than women (contrary to HO1b). Simple slopes: men B=0.39, SE=0.06, p<0.001; women B=0.21, SE=0.05, p<0.001. - Aim 2 (number of children): Significant positive main effect of number of children on meaning (HO2a supported); no interaction with gender (HO2b not supported). Follow-up two-way ANOVA by gender × number of children: F(2,467)=0.180, p=0.84 (no interaction). Main effect of gender (p=0.007; men higher meaning) and number of children (p<0.001; 1 or >1 child > no children). Meaning means (SD): Women—0 children 11.71 (4.84), 1 child 14.10 (3.23), 2+ children 13.36 (4.70); Men—0 children 12.71 (4.84), 1 child 14.98 (3.57), 2+ children 14.88 (3.45). - Exploratory Aim 3 (three-way interaction): Significant relationship quality × number of children × gender interaction. For women, relationship quality positively associated with meaning similarly across child groups: no children B=0.20 (SE=0.07, p<0.001), 1 child B=0.20 (SE=0.05, p<0.001), >1 child B=0.20 (SE=0.09, p=0.02). For men, relationship quality positively associated with meaning for no children (B=0.56, SE=0.09, p<0.001) and 1 child (B=0.36, SE=0.06, p<0.001), but not for >1 child (B=0.15, SE=0.11, p=0.16). - Covariates: Age, religiosity, and connectedness each positively associated with meaning across models. Fixed effects explained >26% of variance (marginal R²≈0.265–0.279); total models explained >58% (conditional R²≈0.581–0.633). ICC≈0.43–0.49. - Supplementary: No significant three-way interactions with race/ethnicity, education, or employment in the relationship quality × gender effects on meaning.

Findings indicate that both high romantic relationship quality and having more children are associated with higher meaning in life, above and beyond religiosity and general connectedness. Contrary to expectations, the relationship quality–meaning link was stronger for men than women, potentially reflecting men’s greater reliance on their partner for close support, whereas women may derive meaning from a broader network of high-quality relationships. Parenthood contributed positively to meaning similarly for women and men. The three-way interaction suggests complexity: for men, additional children attenuated the strength of the association between relationship quality and meaning, becoming non-significant for those with more than one child; for women, the association remained stable regardless of number of children. These patterns suggest that as fathers’ family size grows, other familial roles and relationships (e.g., provider identity, bonds with children) may increasingly contribute to meaning, reducing the unique influence of romantic relationship quality. The results support theoretical perspectives that social connectedness and familial roles underpin meaning in life and have implications for interventions and policies aimed at enhancing family well-being and individual purpose.

This study advances understanding of how familial relationships contribute to meaning in life by jointly examining romantic relationship quality, number of children, and gender. Romantic relationship quality and parenthood each show positive associations with meaning, with a stronger quality–meaning link for men and an attenuated link for men with larger numbers of children. The findings inform theories of meaning in life and suggest policy and clinical implications, including support for inclusive family leave and relationship-focused interventions to enhance meaning. Future research should track these dynamics longitudinally, assess broader sources and facets of meaning, include diverse gender identities and non-partnered individuals, and examine mechanisms (e.g., role identities, parenting stress, caregiving responsibilities) across parenting stages and contexts.

- Sample limited to partnered adults identifying as women or men; results may not generalize to non-partnered individuals or gender-diverse populations. - Overrepresentation of non-parents relative to national estimates; skewed distribution of number of children. - Classification counted only children under 18; 6.1% lived with at least one adult child and were categorized as having no children, introducing heterogeneity. - Cross-sectional design precludes causal inference and directionality; potential selection effects (e.g., higher meaning individuals selecting into satisfying relationships or parenthood) cannot be ruled out. - Data collected during COVID-19; pandemic context may have altered sources and salience of meaning and social relationships. - Did not assess many other potential sources of meaning (e.g., community, personal development) or detailed parenting factors (stress, responsibilities, bonding, child temperament).